^  vri.'\-v*j^ 


B    M    4^fl    DDE 


ZJ^C 


TTbc  XDlnivcrsiti?  of  CbicaQO 


THE  HEBREW  PARTICLE  ^  125  i< 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF  THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF   ARTS 

AND  LITERATURE  IN  CANDLDACY  FOR   THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department   of   SEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND  LITERATURES) 


BY 

CARL  GAENSSLE 


OF   T"^ 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Agriita 
THE  CAMBRIDGE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON  AND  EDINBURGH 

THE  MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 

TOKYO,  OSAKA,  KYOTO 

KARL  W.  HIERSEMANN 

LEIPZIG 

THE  BAKER  &  TAYLOR  COMPANY 

NEW  iOEK 


Zbc  mmvcxsit^  of  Cbicago 


THE  HEBREW  PARTICLE  ^  ^  « 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO   THE    FACULTY   OF   THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    OF   ARTS 

AND   LITERATURE   IN   CANDIDACY   FOR    THE   DEGREE 

OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department   of    SEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND   LITERATURES) 


BY 

CARL  GAENSSLE 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Published  March  1915 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicagro  Press 

Chicago.  Illinois.  U.S.A. 


^Tu'u, 


CONTENTS 

Part  I.     'HIIJS  as  a  Nota  Relationis^ 
A.    The  Etymology  of  "illj^^ 

PAGE 

a)  Various  Etymological  Theories 7 

1.  Reference  to  Older  Theories  as  to  the  Relation  between  "1123  Ji  and  llj . 

2.  Recent  Theories. 

3.  Theory  of  the  Priority  of  mijj^ .     The  View  of  Ewald. 

4.  Theory  of  the  Priority  of  125  • 

5.  The  Views  of  Boettcher  and  Wright. 

6.  Theory  of  the  Substantive  Origin  of  ni2J5< . 

b)  Theory  of  the  Common  Pronominal  Origin  of  I'Cs  and  T2J 
Examined 9 

7-  8.  General  Objections. 

9-10.  Criticism  of  Ewald's  View. 
11-14.  Criticism  of  Boettcher's  View. 
15-18.  Criticism  of  SperUng's  View. 

c)  The  Substantive  Origin  of  ^IIJN 19 

19-24.  Traces  of  Substantive  Origin  in  the  Adverbial  Use  of  112JJ5 . 
25-32.  The  Adverbial  Use  of  "I12J5<  without  Analogy  in  the  Demon- 
stratives of  Other  Semitic  Dialects. 

33-39.  The  Close  Analogy  between  lllit^  and  the  Assyrian  a  s  a  r . 
40.         Objection  against  the  Substantive  Origin  of   "lllJS   Con- 
sidered. 
41-45.  Analogies  from  Other  Languages. 

B.    The  Syntactic  Relation  of  llljj^ 

a)  Criticism  of  Baumann's  Theory 32 

46-50.  Baumann's  Theory  of  the  Syntax  of  IIIJS  . 

51-53.  Baumann's  Theory  Involves  the  Assumption  That  Two 
Successive  Demonstratives  May  Belong  to  the  Same  Ante- 
cedent. 

54.  A  Point  of  Difference  between  the  Relative  Use  of  HT  and 
?1T,  and  nt2J5<  • 

55-57.  Comparison  with  Other  Semitic  Dialects. 

58-61.  *T;25s  Following  Demonstratives  Used  Alone. 

b)  Substantive  Relative  Clauses 41 

1  Cf.  sec.  39,  note. 

3 


30B176 


4  Caul  (Jaenssle 

PAGE 

1.  Substantive  Relative  Cla^ises  as  Subject 

62.        Syntactic  Position  of  I^S  according  to  Boettcher-Baumann 

and  Gcscnius-Kautzsch  Grammar. 
63-05.  Objections  against  This  View. 

2.  Substantive  Relative  Clauses  as  Object 
66.         Examples  Illnstrating  Baumann's  Theory. 

67-68.  Objections  against  the  Theory.     Importance  Attached  to 
nj<  Preceding  TOiK  • 

69.  Object  Relative  Clauses  without  flS  • 

3.     Substantive  Relative  Clauses  Depending  on  a  Preposition 

70.  Clauses  with  -llTN  • 

71.  Clauses  without  "|^^^ . 

4.     Relative  Clauses  in  Construct  State 

72.  Clauses  with  lllj^  • 

73.  Clauses  without  TJJX . 

c)  "IllJN  A  Vague  Medium  of  Relation 50 

74-76.  Used  as  a  Connective  Indicating  Neither  a  Relative  Nor  a 

Conjunctional  Subordination. 

77.  Does  the  Duty  of  a  Partitive  Genitive. 

78.  Takes  the  Place  of  an  Accusative  of  Result. 

79.  Expresses  Attendant  Circumstance. 

80.  Expresses  Means  ( ?) . 

81.  Dispenses  with  Adjuncts  Ordinarily  Employed. 

82.  After  Time-Determinations. 

d)  "iuJ5<  IN  Clauses  of  Specification 55 

83-86.  IllJJi-Clauses  the  Equivalent  of  an  Accustive  of  Specification. 

e)  Miscellaneous 58 

87.  "!irs  with  an  Entire  Sentence  as  Antecedent. 

88.  Construed  Like  the  Indo-European  Relative. 

89.  Attraction  of  Antecedent.     Satzverflechtung. 

90.  Relative  Clause  Precedes  Antecedent. 

91.  Removed  from  Antecedent  by  Intervening  Words. 

92.  Continues  an  Idea  Begun  by  a  Participle. 

/)   The  Retrospective  Complement 63 

93-96.  Weakness  of  Baumann's  View   Regarding  the   Syntactic 

Importance  of  the  'Aid. 
97.        View  of  Konig  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  'Aid . 
98-100.  Erroneous    Statements   of   Gesenius-Kautzsch    Grammar 

with  Reference  to  the  Suppression  of  the  'Aid. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^TTN  5 

PAGE 

Part  II.     The  Conjunctional  Use  of  ^i:JJ<  and  Its 
Compounds 

o)  1i2J>5  Used  Alone 'j^ 

101-  2.  General  Remarks. 

103.        n^^s  in  Subject  Clauses. 

104-  6.  In  Object  Clauses. 

107.         In  Causal  Clauses. 

108-  9.  In  Causal  Relative  Clauses. 

110-11.  In  Pure  Final  Clauses. 

112.  In  Complementary  Final  Clauses. 

113.  In  Final  Relative  Clauses. 

114.  In  Consecutive  Clauses. 

115.  In  a  Complementary  Consecutive  Clause. 

116.  In  Consecutive  Relative  Clauses. 

117.  In  Conditional  Clauses. 
118-34.  In  Conditional  Relative  Clauses. 
135-38.  In  Explicative  Clauses. 

139.  In  Concessive  Clauses. 

140.  In  Concessive  Relative  Clauses. 

141.  In  Temporal  Clauses. 
142-43.  In  Modal  Clauses. 
144.  niljj^  RecUativum. 

b)  llTJi  IN  Compounds 105 

145-47.  n'JJS  as  a  Rule  Dispensed  with.     3  and  IlIJJ^S  • 

"I"12JN5  i>i  Comparative  Clauses 
148-54.  niSjiS  Equivalent  to  "According  to  That  Which,"  the 

niZJN  Retaining  Its  Force  as  a  Relative  Particle. 
155-57.  "ll2Ji<D  Equivalent  to  "According  to  the  Fact  or  Circum- 
stance That,"  the  "112JS  Revealing  Its  Conjunctional  Force. 

158.  "ItlJNS  Introducing  an  Assumed  Comparison. 

159.  Equivalent  to  quo  ....  [eo]. 
160-61.  In  Temporal  Clauses. 

162.  In  Causal  Clauses. 

163.  As  a  Causal  Conjunction. 

'\'m  by 

164-65.  Causal. 

166.  Used  Concessively. 

167.  Causal. 


Carl  Gaenssle 
168-69.  Emphatically  Causal. 

^^s  ^B-by 

170.  In  Proportion  to,  According  as. 

171.  According  as  (with  Causal  Connotation). 

172.  ^3D  Used  Alone. 

173-74.  Used  Prevailingly  in  Divine  Threats  and  Promises. 

175,         An  Unusual  Use  of. 

176-80.  External  Form  in  nT2J&<   "^-Clauses. 

181-82.  In  Consequence  of  the  Fact  That. 

^TiJN  nnn 

183.         In  Its  Primary  Sense  (Instead  of  .  .  .  .). 
184r-87.  In  a  Causal  Sense. 

"^ti^  ^^ni<  (^nx) 

188-89.  Strictly  Temporal. 

190.  With  Causal  Nuance. 

191.  niZJS   nnx  Instead  of  "-nnti . 

192.  "11235^  Dispensed  with. 

193.  Unusual  Forms. 

194-95.  With  Imperfect  Denoting  Future  Action. 

196.  I^IJN   ly  and  Similar  Compounds  with  Perfect  Denoting 
Future  Action. 

197.  With  Final  Connotation. 

198-99.  With  Perfect  Denoting  Past  Action. 

200.  In  the  Sense  of  "To  the  Point  or  Degree  That." 

201.  In  Nominal  Sentences. 

202.  nb-iS'^Tiiis  ly. 

203.  ly  Used  Alone. 

204-  7.  To  the  End  That. 

208.        Sporadic  Cases  of  Compounds  with  ^'JJS  . 


THE  HEBREW  PARTICLE  nTTi^ 
PART  I.    nir5<  AS  A  NOT  A  RELATION  IS 

A.      THE   ETYMOLOGY   OF   llCi^ 
a)    VARIOUS   ETYMOLOGICAL   THEORIES 

1.  Since  there  are  two  relatives  in  Hebrew,  liTX  and  IT,  of  similar 
grammatical  usage,  it  is  quite  natural  that  grammarians  have  sought 
to  trace  them  to  a  common  origin.  The  older  attempts,  referred 
to  by  Sperling,  1  to  trace  both  to  verbal  roots  are  so  manifestly  arbi- 
trary and  artificial  that  we  shall  not  waste  time  in  mentioning  or 
discussing  them. 

2.  In  recent  times  other  theories  have  been  offered.  According 
to  some  scholars  I'^TX  and  '13  look  to  a  common  pronominal  root, 
while  others  hold  that  there  is  no  etymological  relation  between  the 
two,  ^  only  being  regarded  as  pronominal  in  character,  while  I^S 
is  derived  from  a  substantive. 

3.  Among  those  again  who  maintain  the  pronominal  derivation 
of  both  particles  there  is  no  agreement  as  to  how  the  two  distinct 
forms  arose.  Some  scholars  hold  that  "I'^TJ^  is  the  original  form 
of  which  ID  is  said  to  be  a  mutilated  fragment.  Olshausen  says, 
for  example,  that  the  form  IT  is  a  remnant  of  "^ITX  by  the  elision  of 
5<  and  the  assimilation  of  ^  to  the  consonant  of  the  following  word.^ 
So  also  Gesenius,  who  calls  '^T  a  forma  decurtata  of  "^ITS.'    With  this 

1  Die  nota  relationis  im  Hebraischen  (Leipzig,  1876). 

2  Lehrbuch  der  hebraischen  Sprache  (Braunschweig,  1861),  p.  439. 


8  Carl  (^iaensslp: 

view  nuiy  Ix'  classed  tlic  theory  of  Ewald,  inasmuch  as  ho  also  assigns 
the  priority  to  1T&<,  although  he  gives  his  own  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  this  form.  In  the  opinion  of  this  great  scholar  ^oii^  is 
made  up  of  three  demonstrative  elements,  "JJ  (  =  ri,  1,  T),  b,  and  S<, 

resulting  in  the  form  b'iS,  analogous  to  the  Arabic  ^jJi-  From 
this  boJS  arose  the  form  I'i'i^  through  the  hardening  of  the  b,  while 
the  "t23  is  sui)i)osed  to  be  due  to  the  assimilation  of  b  and  the  rejection 
of  S.i 

4.  Others,  as  indicated,  reverse  the  relation  between  the  two 
particles,  assigning  the  priority  to  ^,  of  which  the  form  ^^^^<  is  sup- 
posed to  be  an  extended  formation.  Sperling  devotes  many  pages 
to  the  elaboration  of  his  theory  of  a  progressive  development  from 
an  original  'J3  through  the  Phoenician  "i2Ji<(ir)  to  the  final  "il2J5<  in 
Hebrew.  He,  too,  in  common  with  Ewald,  holds  that  "l^5<  is  due 
to  the  hardening  of  b  in  blTt^  to  1.  Thus,  while  accepting  the 
Ewaldian  form  h'<Li^,  Sperling  contends  that  this  blCX  represents 
the  final  stage  in  the  development  of  123,  while  it  is  the  original  ground- 
form  according  to  Ewald.  Konig,  in  the  first  volume  of  his  elabo- 
rate grammar,  favored  the  view  of  Boettcher,  which  derives  both  123 
and  I'kL'i^  from  an  original  bl23,  and  regards  i<  as  merely  prosthetic. - 
In  the  second  volume  of  the  same  work,  however,  he  abandoned 
this  view  in  favor  of  an  original  b'l23^^ ,  laying,  in  common  with  Sper- 
ling, great  stress  on  the  importance  of  the  Phoenician  123i<  as  the  con- 
necting link  between  123  and  ^123J<.3  Substantially  the  same  view  is 
held  by  Baumann,'*  Philippic  ("das  "I123!J<  wird  demnach  bl23i<  gelautet 
haben"),  and  others. 

5.  Boettcher,  as  already  stated,  takes  a  different  position. 
Regarding  Ewald's  bl23i<  as  being  artificially  constructed  {kunstlich 
konstruiert) ,  he  substituted  for  it  the  simpler  bl23,  analogous  to 
bn,  as  the  ground-form  both  of  123  and  of  "I123S,  the  &^  being  pros- 
thetic.^    Wright,  while  not  taking  a  definite  position,  inclines  toward 


'  Ausfiihrliches  Lehrbuch  der  hebr.  Sprache,  8.  Ausg.  (Gottingen,  1870),  §  ISlt 
=  Hislorisch-krit.  Lehrgeb.  der  hebr.  Sprache  (Leipzig,  1881),  I,  140. 
'  Op.  cit.,  II.  323  f. 

•  Hebrilische  Relativsatze  (Leipzig,  1894),  pp.  42  f. 

•  Status  conatructus  im  Hebraischen  (Weimar,  1871),  pp.  72  f. 

•  Ausfahrliches  Lehrbuch  der  hebr.  Sprache  (Leipzig,  1866).  II.  SI 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "ilIJ^^  9 

the  views  of  Ewald  or  Boettcher,  because  he  prefers  to  "seek  the 
origm  of  the  relative  pronoun  somewhere  in  the  region  of  the 
demonstratives."^ 

6.  The  difficulties  with  which  these  views  are  encumbered  have 
led  many  scholars  to  regard  the  attempt  to  trace  the  two  Hebrew 
relatives  to  a  common  etymological  source  as  futile.  They  deny 
that  there  is  any  etymological  relationship  between  them,  the  longer 
particle  being  in  their  opinion  originally  a  substantive  signifying 
place,  the  Hebrew  equivalent  of  the  Assyrian  a  s  r  u ,  the  Arabic 

Jt  ,  the  Aramaic  "^rii^ ,  ii] .  Among  the  defenders  of  the  sub- 
stantive origin  of  I'^TJ^  are  Fleischer,  Muhlau,^  Friedrich  Delitzsch,^ 
Hommel,^  Stade^  (who  though  assuming  the  substantive  character 
of  "l^&5  still  considers  iT  as  a  remnant  of  the  longer  particle),  W.  R. 
Harper,^  Kraetzschmar,^  Zimmern,^  and,  recently,  Brockelmann.^ 
And  the  writer  of  this  thesis  will  endeavor  to  show  in  the  following 
pages  that  this  is  the  only  tenable  theory.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
grammar  of  Gesenius-Kautzsch  suspends  its  judgment  with  regard 
to  the  matter  ("Die  Etymologie  ist  noch  immer  streitig,"  §  138). 


b)    THEORY   OF   THE    COMMON   PRONOMINAL   ORIGIN    OF   "IITJJ^ 
AND   "iT   EXAMINED 

7.  Let  US  now  examine  the  various  views  represented  by  those 
scholars  who  seek  to  uphold  the  common  pronominal  derivation  of 
the  two  particles.  In  general,  it  may  be  said  at  the  outset  that 
there  is  little  or  no  noticeable  resemblance  between  "iir'5<  and  125 
beyond  the  bare  fact  that  the  letter  W  forms  an  element  in  ^ITi^ . 

»  Comparative  Grammar  of  the  Semitic  Languages  (Cambridge  University  Press,  1890), 
p.  118. 

-  Cf.  Boettcher,  op.  cit.,  II,  79,  note. 

»  Prolegomena  (Leipzig,  1886),  p.  44.  note. 

4  ZDMG,  XXXII,  100  f. 

6  Lehrbuch  der  hebr.  Sprache  (Leipzig,  1879),  p.  133. 

«  Elements  of  Hebrew  (Scribner,  1906),  p.  63. 

'  "The  Origin  of  the  nota  relationis  in  Hebrew,"  Hebraica,  VI  (1890),  296  t. 

8  V ergleichende  Grammatik  der  semitischen  Sprachen  (Berlin,  1898),  p.  77. 

•  Ibid.  (Berlin,  1908).  §  109  g  and  (3. 


10  C'ahl  (Iaknssle 

This  alone  might  seem  to  precliuU^  the  j^ossihiUty  of  finding  a  com- 
mon origin  for  both  by  any  other  than  artificial  combinations.  How- 
ever, it  is  a  fact  well  known  to  linguistic  science  that  words  are  often 
mutilated  and  disfigured  beyond  immediate  recognition  in  the  course 
of  their  history.  Assuming  then  the  priority  of  1"^X ,  there  may, 
after  all,  be  no  a  priori  reason  why  "d  should  not  be  a  mere  remnant 
of  the  earlier  complete  form,  though  such  a  radical  change  in  the 
physiognomy  of  a  word  would  certainly  represent  about  the  utmost 
limit  in  the  process  of  phonetic  decay.  But  similar  changes  have 
actually  occurred  in  other  languages.  We  can  hardly  recognize 
the  Low  Latin  aetaticum  in  the  English  word  "age,"  nor  the  Latin 
demonstrative  ille  in  the  enclitical  I  of  the  Roumanian  homul  (homo 
ille),  yet  they  belong  etymologically  together.  However,  such 
phenomena  do  not  warrant  the  assumption  that  the  same  thing  has 
happened  with  "luIJi ,  for  the  reason  that  123  meets  us  simultaneously 
with  "i^S ,  already  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  language,  whereas  the 
examples  referred  to  above  represent  the  result  of  a  long  process  of 
decay,  the  shorter  forms  not  being  found  side  by  side  with  the  full 
and  unimpaired  originals.  We  are,  of  course,  well  aware  that  *v23  is 
emplo3^ed  much  more  extensively  in  the  later  literature  than  in  the 
earlier.  But  the  fact  remains  that  it  is  also  found,  though  with  less 
frequency,  in  the  earUer  writings,  e.g.,  in  the  song  of  Deborah,  which 
is  by  many  regarded  as  the  oldest  monument  of  biblical  Hebrew. 
Nor  need  we  doubt  that  the  pronominal  IT  is  contained  as  an 
element  in  such  compound  names  as  byjlT^np  (Gen.  4:18),  and 
bX'iJr;;  (Exod.  6:21);  perhaps  also  in  DB'iS  (Gen.  6:3).  These 
facts  are  very  troublesome  for  the  theory  of  common  origin. 

8.  Moreover,  a  glance  at  the  corresponding  forms  in  other  Semitic 
languages  clearly  shows  that  a3  is  etymologically  independent  of 
"I'i'S .  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  all  undoubted  Semitic  rela- 
tives^ (originally  demonstratives)  are  traceable  to  the  two  demon- 
strative roots  ta  and  da,  the  "lisped  dentals  forming  part  of  the 
'protosemitic'  stock  of  sounds  preserved  in  Arabic  alone. "^  From 
da  are  derived  the  Ethiopie  "H  ,  Syriac  ? ,  Aramaic  "^ ,  and  the  Arabic 

'  "ITDSH  is  uot  included  here. 

'Wright,  Comparative  Grammar,  p.  55. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ■i'©i<  11 

O  in  ,^jJt  ;  while  ta  (the  t  passing  into  s  according  to  the  well- 
known  law  of  phonetics)  is  the  original  of  the  Assyrian  s  a ,  the 
Phoenician  "JJCvIji^),  and  the  Hebrew  "oJ .  This  theory,  while  avoid- 
ing all  precarious  combinations,  which  must  arise  from  every  attempt 
to  connect  oJ  with  "^'^TX  ,  has  the  merit  of  assigning  to  the  Hebrew  oJ 
a  natural  and  fitting  place  in  Semitic  in  accordance  with  well- 
established  phonetic  laws. 

9.  But  let  us  now  examine  the  various  views  of  a  common  pro- 
nominal origin  more  in  detail.  First,  those  which  assign  the  priority 
to  1uC5< .  Since  Olshausen  contents  himself  with  the  bare  state- 
ment that  "JJ  is  the  shortened  form  of  loJi^  without  attempting  any 
explanation  of  the  shorter  form,^  we  shall  first  take  up  the  theory 
of  Ewald.  The  ground-form,  says  this  scholar,  is  bt235< .  Boettcher 
rightly  objected  that  this  form  was  "artificially  constructed."  This 
hypothetical  ba35<  springs,  in  fact,  from  the  determination  to  bridge 
over,  at  all  hazards,  the  gulf  between  iT  and  "I'^Ti^ .  Doubtless  no 
scholar  would  ever  have  thought  of  resorting  to  such  a  desperate 
expedient,  if  the  common  pronominal  origin  of  the  two  particles 
were  not  a  foregone  conclusion.  But  assuming  bxb^  to  have  been 
the  parent  both  of  "*2J  and  of  I^TJ^ ,  it  would  be  rather  singular,  to 
say  the  least,  that  the  supposed  original  should  exhibit  such  diametri- 
cally opposite  tendencies  in  its  development.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
b  hardens  into  ~  ,  and  the  entire  form  in  this  new  shape  steadily 
and  stubbornly  maintains  its  independent  existence  throughout  the 
entire  period  of  the  language.  On  the  other,  the  initial  X  disappears 
entirely,  b  disappears  through  assimilation,  and  the  remaining 
fragment  leans  on  the  following  word  for  support.  We  contend 
that  this  militates  against  all  the  laws  of  language.  How  can  we 
conceive  this  twofold  process  going  on  at  the  same  time  and  leading 
in  exactly  opposite  directions  ?  If  the  assumed  b'JJX  showed  a  pro- 
pensity to  surrender  its  independence  and,  by  the  rejection  of  1!< 
and  the  assimilation  of  b ,  become  a  procHtic  of  the  succeeding  word, 
the  origin  of  1"^5<  from  the  same  b'oJK  and  its  steadfast  continuance 
beside  the  shorter  form  become  inexpUcable. 

10.  As  for  the  b  in  \)Z^ ,  this  is  gratuitously  assumed  by  Ewald 
in  order  to  find,  what  he  thought,  an  adequate  explanation  for  the 

>  Lehrbuch  der  hebr.  Sprache,  p.  439. 


12  Carl  Gaenssle 

daghesli  forte  after  -'^  .  Ewald  starts  out  from  the  theory  that  the 
(laghesh  necessarily  impHes  the  assimilation  of  a  preceding  letter, 
but  this  view  is  without  foundation,  as  Sperling  correctly  objects, 
the  daghesh  being  frequently  found  where  assimilation  is  out  of  the 
question.  The  daghesh  after  1  consecutive,  in  TV3^ ,  {1533 ,  and 
very  likely  also  in  such  combinations  as  n;TTl?J  ,  HMTI*^  ,  '^'TTC 
are  cases  in  point.  The  sharpening  here  takes  place  in  order  to 
strengthen  the  preceding  vowel.  I  say  "very  likely  also"  with 
reference  to  the  daghesh  after  •  'TV2  .  It  is  true  that  Wright,^  follow- 
ing Boettcher,  thinks  that  an  easy  explanation  for  the  daghesh  is 
here  found  in  the  fact  that  IT'J  goes  back  to  an  original  mant,  which, 
passing  successively  through  the  intermediate  stages  of  matt,  mat, 
math,  mah  (n7J),  finally  assumed  the  form  with  an  open  syllable 
(n*^) .  But  the  very  existence  of  the  final  form  ITTJ  with  a  quiescent 
n  is  fatal  to  the  foregoing  explanation  of  the  daghesh.  If  the  develop- 
ment of  the  original  ma7it  had  not  proceeded  beyond  math  or  mah 
(ri"^),  in  other  words,  if  it  had  stopped  at  a  point  where  the 
form  still  represented  a  closed  syllable,  the  following  daghesh  might 
easily  be  explained  on  the  principle  of  assimilation.  But  it  went 
one  degree  farther,  so  that  the  original  consonantal  ending  wore 
away  entirely.  Consequently  the  daghesh  in  the  following  word 
must  be  explained  on  other  grounds  than  assimilation.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  daghesh  is  intended  to  strengthen  and  preserve 
the  preceding  vowel.  Nor  can  the  daghesh  after  the  Hebrew  article 
be  urged  in  favor  of  Ewald's  view  with  respect  to  the  doubling  after 
•  'Z  .  The  once  prevalent  idea  that  the  Hebrew  article  •  H  involves 
the  assimilation  of  b ,  making  the  original  bn  identical  with  the 
Arabic  J^ ,  Jl  ,  cannot  be  upheld.  Barth  has  conclusively  shown 
that  the  Hebrew  article  corresponds  to  the  Arabic  be  r  At  all  events, 
there  is  no  inherent  necessity  for  assuming  the  assimilation  of  b 
or  any  other  letter  to  account  for  the  daghesh  forte  as  in  -IT  .  Thus 
Ewald's  whole  theory,  besides  being  extremely  labored  and  artificial 
in  itself,  is  also  deprived  of  this  imaginary  support,  and  the  probability 
of  its  correctness  is  reduced  to  a  minimum. 

11.  Passing  on  to  Boettcher's  theory,  we  do  not  see  that  it  carries 
us  any  farther  toward  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  difficulties  con- 

'  Comparatire  Grammar,  p.  124.  s  AJSL,  XIII  (1896),  1  f. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  *112Ji5  13 

nected  with  "vT  and  "IITS  than  the  view  of  Ewald.  As  is  well  known, 
Boettcher  assumes  an  original  b'^T ,  a  by-form  of  bn ,  which,  by  the 
accession  of  a  prosthetic  i<  and  the  hardening  of  b  into  "i ,  resulted  in 
"11235^ ,  while  at  the  same  time  the  assumed  b  gave,  as  before,  a  con- 
venient explanation  for  the  daghesh  as  in  •  T2J .  But  the  principal 
objection  against  Ewald's  theory  also  applies  here.  If  the  original 
was  blT  ,  it  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  on  the  one  hand  the  form 
should  tend  to  grow  and  strive  after  independence  by  taking  on  the 
X  and  hardening  its  b  into  ^ ,  while  on  the  other  hand  it  should  so 
weaken  as  to  become  a  feeble  proclitic  of  the  following  word.  This 
blT  owes  its  origin  to  nothing  else  than  the  fiat  of  its  author,  who 
postulated  it  as  an  open-sesame  in  the  effort  to  derive  123  and  ^oJS 
from  a  common  source.  There  is  nothing  that  corresponds  with 
bl23  in  any  Semitic  tongue.  A  posteriori  Boettcher  looks  around 
and  finds  an  abundant  variety  of  "proofs"  for  the  correctness  of  his 
view.  Foremost  among  these  is  the  fact  that  the  spiritus  asper  (h) 
and  s  (sh)  are  found  in  some  instances  to  correspond  in  Semitic. 
Boettcher  calls  attention  to  such  forms  as  nztlboJ  and  VOTl^Ti , 
bbyjj  and  vb^n ;  also  to  similar  phenomena  in  Indo-European, 
e.g.,  aXXo^iat  and  salio,  aXs  and  sal.  But  apart  from  the  fact  that 
in  so  doing  he  is  plainly  begging  the  question,  there  is  no  undoubted 
instance  of  such  interchange  between  !!  and  'Z  in  Hebrew,  the  rinnblT 
being  a  shaf el-formation  borrowed  from  the  Aramaic.^  As  for  the 
n  and  12:  of  the  causative  stems,  there  is  as  yet  no  consensus  of  opinion 
among  Semitic  scholars  as  regards  the  mutual  relation  of  these 
formations.  Some  of  the  most  noted  Semitists  either  leave  the 
matter  of  their  original  identity  an  open  question  or  deny  that 
such  identity  ever  existed.  Zimmern,  for  example,  says  with  refer- 
ence to  saqiala  and  haqtala  that  it  is  impossible  to  decide  whether 
we  have  here  "two  originally  separate  formations,"-  or  whether 
haqtala  is  a  descendant  of  saqiala  by  phonetic  change.  Brockel- 
mann,  on  the  other  hand,  declares  that  the  prefixes  s  a  ,  ha,  and  'a 
cannot  be  traced  to  a  single  ground-form,  whence  it  must  be  assumed 
that  they  existed  side  by  side  in  protosemitic.^    Wright,  however,  it 

1  Cf.  Gesenius,  Handworterbuch,  s.v.;   also  Konig,  Lehrgeb.  der  hebr.  Sprache.  II,  404. 

2  Von    Haus    aus    verschiedene    Bildungen;     cf.     Vergleichende    Grammatik    der   semit. 
.  Svrachen,  p.  88. 

•  Ibid.,  pp.  520  f. 


14  Carl  Gaenssle 

is  only  fair  to  add,  liolds  that  s  and  h  in  these  stems  were  originally 
identical,  .s  having  changed  into  h.^  Thus  the  theory  of  Boettcher 
is  seen  to  rest  on  a  very  slend(>r  foundation,  so  far  as  this  interchange 
of  n  and  uj  is  concerned. 

12.  But  there  are  other  difficulties  besetting  the  Boettcher 
theory  besides  those  of  phonetics.  If  551  is  only  a  by-form  of  blC  ,^ 
it  is  not  easy  to  explain  why  such  a  by-form  should  come  into  exist- 
ence at  all.  Why  should  not  the  original  b'JJ,  a])breviated  into  -lij, 
have  sufficed,  especially  within  the  same  language?  Such  a  duality 
of  forms  is  unparalleled  within  the  range  of  Semitic  demonstratives. 
The  Assyrian  has  s  a  as  a  demonstrative  relative,  but  not  a  trace  of  a 
corresponding  form  with  h.  It  also  has  s  u ,  but  not  a  coexistent  by- 
form  h  u .  Assuming  then  that  blC  was  the  primary  form,  we  should 
expect  to  find  it  employed  (in  its  abbreviated  form)  as  the  Hebrew 
article,  and  the  more  so,  since,  as  already  stated,  there  is  no  inter- 
change between  "^23  and  Tl  in  Hebrew.  Again,  if  the  two  forms  spring 
from  a  single  stock,  we  should  naturally  expect  to  find  some  trace 
of  agreement  in  grammatical  usage.  But  such  agreement  is  nowhere 
to  be  found.  IT  is  never  used  as  an  article,  while  H  performs  almost 
exclusively  that  function,'  a  fact  that  stands  in  glaring  contrast  with 
the  analogy  of  the  causative  verbal  stems  in  IT  and  Tl ,  which  have 
practically  the  same  significance. 

13.  "Die  Form  "iTTJ^ ,"  says  Boettcher,  "hat  sich  erst  mit  der 
Sonderstellung  von  blT  erhartet."*  This  is  the  way  in  which  Boett- 
cher conceives  the  transition  from  the  shorter  to  the  longer  form. 
blT  with  a  change  of  the  original  vowel  is  supposed  to  represent 
the  intermediate  stage  in  the  evolution  toward  ~\'^i^.  Thus  both 
the  daghesh  after  -113  (before  the  Sonderstellung)  and  the  -  in  ITTS 
were  accounted  for — but  on  the  impossible  assumption  that  the 
same  particle  simultaneously  detached  itself  from  and  attached  itself 
to  the  succeeding  word.^ 

I  Comparative  Grammar,  pp.  204  f. 

^Boettcher  calls  bC  a  by-form  of  bjl.  hut  taking  their  original  unity  for  granted, 
the  reverse  of  this  is  the  true  relation,  bllj  being  the  earlier  form, 

'  In  a  few  sporadic  instances  the  Hebrew  article,  originally  a  demonstrative,  is  used 
as  a  relative. 

*  AusfUhrl.  Lehrbuch..  etc..  I,  15.3. 

'  There  is,  of  course,  a  form  bttj .  but  this,  being  modeled  on  the  analogy  of  the 
Aramaic  b'^'l ,  has  no  connection  with'Soettcher's  ^XJj . 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "i'OS  15 

14.  Also  the  supposition  that  the  5<  is  merely  prosthetic  is  open 
to  criticism.  The  Aleph  prostheticon  is  employed  to  "lighten  the 
pronunciation  of  an  unpleasant  combination  of  consonants"  (Wright). 
In  other  words,  the  prosthetic  vowel  is  used  on  grounds  of  euphony. 
We  find  it  in  such  words  as  begin  with  two  consonants,  the 
first  of  which  is  vowelless,  e.g.,  5i^7S;  for  yi"iT  ;  bil^PJ*  for 
bi'jri .  So  also  in  Arabic,  Syriac,  and  bibhcal  Aramaic.  There 
are  also  numerous  analogies  in  modern  languages;  cf.  in  English 
special  and  especial,  state  and  estate;  the  English  stomach  and  the 
French  estomac,  spirit  and  esprit;  the  German  sklave  and  the  French 
esclave.  Also  the  Greek  x^«  a-nd  exd^s,  aairalpco  and  airalpo) 
exemplify  the  same  principle.  In  all  cases,  it  will  be  seen,  the  pre- 
fixing of  an  initial  vowel  springs  from  grounds  of  euphony,  the  words 
beginning  with  two  consonants  in  immediate  juxtaposition.  But  no 
such  grounds  for  the  addition  of  an  initial  vowel  exist  in  the  case 
under  consideration.  A  word  so  easily  pronounced  and  so  frequently 
used  as  would  be  the  case  with  the  blT  in  question  would  hardly 
burden  itself  with  a  wholly  superfluous  prosthetic  ^<,  especially 
since  the  whole  tendency  of  language  in  the  case  of  frequently  used 
particles  is  rather  toward  abbreviation  than  extension. 

15.  We  now  come  to  consider  the  opposite  theory.  May  not 
"^oJi^  be  a  Weiterhildung  of  vT  without  assuming  either  an  b'^^  or  a 
b 'iT'  as  the  ground-form  ?  This  is,  as  remarked,  the  view  of  SperUng, 
which  he  elaborates  with  much  labor  and  skill.  While  Sperling  is 
unquestionably  right  in  vindicating  for  the  particle  'J2  an  original 
place  in  Semitic,  he  is  on  very  uncertain  ground,  when  he  contends  that 
the  original  form  was  '^ .  The  corresponding  Assyrian  form  sa, 
from  which  the  Hebrew  particle  cannot  be  etymologically  separated, 
makes  this  view  extremely  improbable,  to  say  the  least.^  Kraetzsch- 
mar  already  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Assyrian  sa  had 
originally  a  long  vowel,  being  written  sa-a  in  the  syllabaries,  though 
when  employed  for  literary  purposes  in  the  inscriptions  it  invariably 
appears  as  s  a.^  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  long  form  s  a-a 
OQCurs  frequently  in  the  Amarna  Tablets.  In  Hebrew  the  long  vowel 
is  found  in  HFlSir  (Judg.  6:17),  more  frequently,  however,  -'^  with 

1  Konig  thijiks  that  the  Hebrew  may  have  occupied  a  Sonderstellung  with  reference  to 
§a;     cf.  Lehrgeb.,  II,  323. 

2  BA.  I.  382. 


1(")  Carl  Gaenssle 

tlic  short (>ninp;  of  the  vowel  jukI  the  compcusativo  (lap;hosh.  This  also 
favors  ail  orij!;inal  long  vowol.  Rut  the  coiiimoncst  forms  of  our  par- 
ticle are  •  TT  ami  'X  ,  even  'Z  Ixin^  found.  This  has  led  some  scholars 
to  believe  that  ,.  must  have  i)eeu  tlu;  original  vowel.  But  besides 
the  fact,  already  referred  to,  that  the  Assyrian  sa-a  and  §a  stand 
directly  opi>ose<l  to  this  view,  the  chanpie  from  a  to  e  is  quite  common 
in  Hebrew,  and.  therefore,  the  transition  from  sa  to  Se  constitutes 
no  such  difficulty  as,  for  instance,  Kiinip;  supposes.'  We  need  only 
refer  to  the  ,.  of  the  article  before  the  gutturals  n,  y,  and  H;  or 
to  ri-  instead  of  H -  ,  which  is  found  not  only  before  gutturals 
(ri'"j;7"r!"2  ,  "nsrin'n*^  ,  etc.),  but  before  other  consonants  as  well, 
e.g.,  :i3ri  rrZ'by  (Isa.  l:o),  ^TTb  n'2  (Jer.  11:15),  ni^3^b  ri-2  for 
"ii'TV2  ,  and  numerous  other  instances.-  The  same  change  is  found 
in  verbal  and  nominal  forms.  Cf.  "'nbl^oJ  with  DFlbsiT ,  and  the 
segholate  forms  y^S  ,  "53  ,  "pp  ,  originally  pronounced  y^if* ,  "(33  , 
■pP  ,  as  is  plainly  seen  not  only  from  the  corresponding  Arabic  forms 

'   uf.  o^  o^ 

^J  ,  ^^vA=». ,  jOY*  )  'lut  also  from  the  Hebrew  forms  with  the  suffix 
"4"^^^ ,  etc.  Cf.  also  the  pausal  forms  yiX ,  'S3  ,  yp .  That  the 
a  in  "iC  should  be  weakened  into  e  and  even  into  mere  sewa  (cf.  ^y}'iL 
[Eccles.  3:18],  corresponding  to  the  Syriac  ?  and  the  targumic  "H) 
is,  therefore,  quite  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  vowel  change  in 
Hebrew. 

16.  In  working  out  his  theory,  Sperling  lays  great  stress  on  the 
Phoenician  *i*S  as  constituting  the  connecting  link  between  ^3  and 
""i'S  .  In  this  he  is  followed  by  Konig,  who  makes  the  summary  and 
categorical  statement  that  the  Phoenician  form  is  "in  seiner  tat- 
siichlichen  Existenz  ein  Bindeglied  zwischen  hebr.  "iT  und  loJi^  ."^ 
Sperling  objects  to  Ewald's  view  that  it  failed  to  give  due  recognition 
to  this  supposed  intermediate  (2JX  of  the  Phoenician.  To  judge  from 
the  Poeniilus  of  Plautus,  this  form  seems  sometimes  to  have  been 
pronounced  in  two  syllables  (asse).  Such  being  the  case,  Sperling 
argues,  one  can  see  no  reason  for  the  rejection  of  the  third  consonant 
of  Ewald's  ground-form  boIS  ,  least  of  all  in  the  shape  of  ^*23S  .     One 

'  Lehrgeb..  II,  323. 

3  Cf.  Stade,  Hebrdische  Grammatik,  p.   130. 

«  Lehrgeb.,  II.  323. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "^ISi^  17 

should  expect,  says  Sperling,  to  find  a  trace  of  this  final  consonant 
in  Phoenician.  Again,  if  this  1  was  in  reality  as  fleeting  as  the 
Phoenician  form  ol^i  is  supposed  to  prove,  one  would  at  least  expect 
to  find  a  form  similar  to  the  Phoenician  in  some  passage  of  the 
Hebrew,  for  it  would  be  singular  if  "^"^TX,  in  the  course  of  its  history, 
should  have  complete^ passed  over  the  stage  of  the  Phoenician  'ZH^.'^ 
17.  While  these  remarks  expose  the  weakness  of  Ewald's  theory 
with  reference  to  the  intermediate  stage  of  the  supposed  development 
or  rather  decay  of  the  assumed  original  b"JJ!^,  the  opposite  view  put 
forward  by  Sperling  himself  is  beset  with  similar  difficulties.-  In 
common  with  Stade,  Sperling  holds  that  the  Phoenician  and  the 
Hebrew  ran  a  common  course  in  their  earlier  history,  and  that  later 
on  they  branched  out  into  two  distinct  languages.  The  form  'dX 
was  already  in  existence  before  the  separation  took  place.  The 
Phoenician  never  developed  a  fuller  form,  but  the  Hebrew  completed 
the  process  by  adding  a  third  pronominal  element,  b,  thus  closing 
the  open  syllable  in  a3t< .  It  is  more  probable,  according  to  Sperling, 
that  the  Hebrew  should  have  made  this  addition  to  a  form  that 
was  growing  from  'J:  than  that  the  Phoenician  should  have  cast  off 
the  b  of  the  assumed  original  bTS.  But  this  theory  does  not  help 
us  in  the  least.  The  stubborn  fact  remains  that  only  two  forms 
appear  in  Hebrew  literature  with  the  missing  link  still  to  be  found. 
Whether  we  accept,  with  Ewald,  the  theory  of  decay  from  bl2Ji<  to  '^23, 
or,  with  Sperhng,  that  of  growth  from  IT  to  b'JJS,  in  either  case  we 
have  only  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  process  with  a  yawning  gulf 
between.  If  'JJS  is  the  immediate  precursor  of  b'JJS  or  "I'i'X,  we 
must  expect  to  find  some  vestige  of  it  in  Hebrew.  Granting  the 
correctness  of  this  view,  the  language  has  preserved  examples  of  the 
earliest  and  of  the  latest  form.  Why  not  also  of  the  intermediate 
form,  if  such  development  actually  took  place?  Or  are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  as  soon  as  the  Hebrew  set  out  on  its  independent  course  of 
development  the  'iX  straightway  leaped  into  an  bxii  or  "i'JIJS  with- 
out revealing  a  trace  of  its  former  existence  ?  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that  Sperling's  objection  against  Ewald's  view  applies  equally  to  his 
own.     If  Ewald's  b'JJS  passes  into  'JJ  without  giving  due  weight  to 

1  Die  "  nota  relationis"  im  Hebr.,  p.  19. 

2  It  must  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  Sperling  starts  with  Tij  as  the  original  form. 


18  Carl  Gaenssle 

ITS,  Sperling's  IT  passes  at  a  bound  into  (1)b'j:S,  since  the  ir5<  is 
absent  when  the  theory  is  most  sorely  in  need  of  it.* 

18.  The  theory  of  Sperling  is  found  wanting,  finally,  also  in  the 
last  stage  of  the  proposed  development.  The  "1  which  is  added  to 
the  'iTS  is  not  a  pronominal  clement  in  any  Semitic  language.- 
Sperling  frankly  confesses  that  it  "admits  of  no  immediate  explana- 
tion" {"eiiie  umnittelhare  ErMdrung  nicht  zuldsst").-  To  save  the 
theory,  therefore,  he  is  obliged  to  resort  to  the  expedient  of  an  original 
b,  thus  arriving  at  the  form  bwi^,  from  which  Ewald  sets  out.  In 
support  of  this  b,  Sperling  appeals  to  the  interchange  of  b  and  "i 
in  Semitic,  e.g.,  ^"^S  and  ^byj  in  biblical  Aramaic;  nil-T'J  and 
ri^T'I  in  Hebrew.  Now  we  might  render  any  further  discussion 
of  this  matter  unnecessary  by  simply  pointing  to  the  futility  of 
referring  to  this  possible  interchange  of  b  and  "i  at  all,  if,  as  we 
beheve  we  have  shown,  the  unfinished  form  "JJb^,  to  which  b  is 
attached,  never  existed  in  Hebrew.  But  granting,  for  argument's 
sake,  that  the  supposed  intermediate  form  '^i^^  actually  existed  and 
that  the  b  was  attached  to  it  as  a  third  pronominal  element,  we 
again  have  a  right  to  demand  that  the  latter  show  some  trace  of  its 
existence.  Strictly  speaking,  the  coexistence,  within  the  same  lan- 
guage, of  two  forms  of  a  word,  one  with  b,  the  other  with  "i,  so  far 
from  supporting  Sperling's  view,  rather  militates  against  it.  It 
shows  plainly  that  the  same  word  may  exist  under  two  forms  without 
the  disappearance  of  the  one  or  the  other.  Now  if  there  ever  had 
been  such  a  form  as  b'lTi^,  we  might  reasonably  expect  it  to  have 
maintained  its  existence,  even  though  a  by-form  "i"J3i<  should  have 
sprung  up  alongside  it.  Why  not  blTS  and  TJJ&5  as  well  as  ^-^S 
and  ^"iS  ?  Again,  b  being  a  genuine  pronominal  element  in  Semitic, 
the  buJX  would  doubtless  have  shown  considerable  tenacity  of  life. 

'  The  Phoenician  TBS  has  been  variously  explained.  Kraetzschraar  sees  in  TSS 
nothing  but  an  extension  of  tD  by  the  addition  of  the  demonstrative  element  55 ,  analogous 
to  the  Assyrian  a  k  i  for  k  I .  Homniel  regards  it  as  a  by-form  of  TJJ  due  to  the  transposi- 
tion  iUmsprinuen)  of  the  vowel,  analogous  to  OX  as  compared  with  the  Arabic  ^^  ; 

bS  and  Stb  ,  ef.  il  and  Assyrian  la  (cf.  BA,  1,381).  Perhaps  it  is  best,  with  DeUtzsch,  to 
combine  the  Phoenician  ©S  with  the  Assyrian  aSSu.  assa,  which,  though  used  pre- 
dominantly as  a  conjunction,  is  also  employed  as  a  relative,  like  Sa  {Proll..  p.  44;  Assy- 
risches  HandwSrterbuch.  pp.  151  f.).  The  fact  that  a  s  s  u  is  sometimes  accompanied  by  s  a 
(a  !5  s  u  -s  a)  is  not,  as  Kraetzschmar  tliinks,  an  insuperable  objection.  Redundancies  of 
this  kind  are  not  uncommon;  cf.  ly^Zl^  ]7^  i"  Hebrew. 
-•  Op.  cii..  p.  20. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^lUS  19 

Instead  of  disappearing  altogether,  it  would  seem  to  me,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  it  would  maintain  its  ground  as  the  predominating  form 
with  the  possibility  of  "1*23^5  as  a  by-form.  It  is  not  conceivable 
that  this  b  should  have  been  so  transitory  and  short-lived  that  it 
was  driven  completely  from  the  field  the  moment  it  came  into  exist- 
ence. The  possible  objection  that  bl2J5<  might  have  flourished  in 
the  early  pre-literary  period  and  have  already  yielded  its  position, 
when  the  first  written  memorials  appear,  is  obviated  by  the  fact  that 
the  literature  has  preserved  the  still  older  (according  to  the  theory) 
"it  in  spite  of  later  (hypothetical)  developments.  We  repeat,  there- 
fore, that  we  have  a  right  to  demand,  if  the  theory  is  to  hold  water, 
that  blTU^  as  the  nearest  ancestor  of  "li235<  show  some  sign  of  its 
existence.  To  sum  up,  the  theory  of  Sperling  necessitates  a  leap 
at  every  stage  along  the  line.  Instead  of  natural  growth  and  sequence 
from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  form,  we  have  four  forms,  IT,  'JJJ<,  b'JJi^, 
and  "I'diX ,  the  two  middle  ones  imaginary  and  hypothetical,  and  each 
of  the  four  disconnected  from  its  neighbor,  so  far  as  may  be  ascer- 
tained from  the  existing  records. 

c)    THE    SUBSTANTIVE    ORIGIN    OF   "i'lTS 

19.  If,  therefore,  the  theory  of  the  pronominal  origin  of  llZJi^ 
and  its  etymological  kinship  with  12J  must  be  abandoned,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  locate  the  particle  among  the  substantives.  This  view, 
together  with  its  principal  representatives,  has  already  been  men- 
tioned at  the  beginning  of  this  dissertation.  What  may  be  said 
in  its  favor  ? 

20.  Before  looking  around  for  analogies  from  other  languages, 
let  us  see  if  the  Hebrew  itself  lends  any  countenance  to  this  theory 
of  "il2Ji<.  I  think  that  an  unprejudiced  examination  of  not  a  few 
Old  Testament  passages  will  show  conclusively  that  the  use  of  "ITTX 
differs  in  some  respects  so  widely  and  fundamentally  from  that  of  any 
undoubted  Semitic  demonstrative  as  to  render  the  view  of  its  nominal 
origin  almost  unassailable.  I  have  reference  especially  to  those 
passages  in  which  llTi^  without  an  antecedent  is  employed  in  the 
sense  of  ''where"  or  "whither,"  as  the  case  may  be.  Cf.  Judg. 
5:27,  ITlip  bSD  DTT  5^3  ^TTSS,  "where  he  bowed,  there  he  fell 
down  overpowered^';   Ruth  1:16,   "fbs  ^rbn  ^^n,  "where  thou 


20  Carl  Gaensslk 

lodgest,  I  will  lodge";  vs.  17,  Tfli'2^  "n^:2n  I'vZJXiL,  "where  thou 
diest,  I  will  die";  Judg.  17:8,  9;  I  Sara.  23:13;  II  Kings  8:1; 
Job  39:30;  Exod.  32:34,  r\b  'nnn^-i-j-yt  bs  Drn  Hnp,  "lead 
this  people  whither  I  have  spoken  unto  thee";  Ruth  1:16,  ^^  "3 
-bs  'Sbn  ^"iS ,  "for  whither  thou  goest  I  shall  go";  II  Sam.  15:20, 
T^bin  "S  1">rJ^  b^  T]bin  ^3X1,  "I  am  going  whither  I  am  going"; 
I  Kings  8:12,  51«-xb  n"j;s  b^'  ?jS;T23^  nin';,  "Jahwe  shall  bear  thee 
7t'/»7/?er  I  donotknow";  Exod.  5:11,  ^K'ffn  "^'^^q  "nn  D::b  ^np, 
"get  straw /rom  where  you  can  find  it." 

21.  In  these  passages  the  substantive  origin  of  ^ITS  seems  to  be 
indicated  by  the  construction.  This  construction  is  without  analogy 
in  other  Semitic  languages.  No  Semitic  relative  used  absolutely  has 
a  local  signification  such  as  we  find  here.  Konig  gets  around  the 
difficulty  by  declaring  that  an  antecedent  of  place  is  to  be  supplied  in 
cases  like  the  foregoing,  that  is,  when  a  preposition  is  immediately 
followed  by  "loJi^ .  "Wo  also  sonst  eine  Praposition  vor  einem 
Relativum  steht,  bezieht  sich  dieselbe  auf  ein  vor  dem  Relativsatz 
weggelassenes  Demonstrativum.  Auf  einer  solchen  Ellipse  beruht 
"I'ZSS ,  ubi;  es  ist  da  h inter  TJJ5<  nicht  noch  einmal  die  vor  dem 
weggelassenen  neutralen  Demonstrativum  stehende  Praposition  mit 
dem  Personalpronomen  gesetzt,  also  nicht  iH  "'u2!5<S  an  dem 
[Punkte],  an  welchem."  This,  however,  is  not  an  explanation,  but 
an  evasion.  Konig  here  boldly  imports  into  the  text  the  local  idea 
which  it  is  our  business  to  account  for  in  the  language  as  it  lies  before 
us.  If,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  loSlSJ  were  preceded  by  an  ante- 
cedent of  place,  the  demonstrative  theory  of  the  particle  could  be 
upheld,  so  far  as  these  passages  are  concerned.  This  will  become 
more  apparent  presently,  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  usage  in  the 
other  Semitic  languages.  Baumann,  to  be  sure,  who  strenuously 
defends  the  demonstrative  character  of  ^HJt^ ,  finds  no  difficulty  in 
deaUng  with  these  passages.  He  says  that  in  such  cases  IITS  has 
become  "mehr  ein  demonstratives  Adverb."^  In  support  of  this 
view  he  points  to  the  fact  that  there  are  other  instances  of  the 
adverbial  use  of  a  demonstrative,  e.g..  Gen.  38:21,  tlTS  nn^n  i<b 
ri'iTjp,  "there  is  no  kedesha  here  (in  this  [place])."  The  use  of  HTS 
in  the  sense  of  hie,  "here,"  is,  of  course,  quite  common.     The  same 

'  Hebraische  RelativsdUe,  p.  22. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "I'OS  2i 

applies  to  tlV2  ,  hinc,  "from  here."  But  this  proves  only  one  thing, 
viz.,  that  demonstrative  pronouns  may  assume  an  adverbial  function, 
not,  however,  that  "112355  is  such  a  demonstrative.  To  appeal  to  this 
usage  of  nT|L  as  supporting  the  demonstrative  origin  and  use  of  TjiS 
is  simply  to  beg  the  question.  The  fact  is  that  Tl2J!SSl  is  used  only 
in  a  relative  and  never  in  a  strictly  demonstrative  sense.  HT^l ,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  never  employed  in  a  relative  construction. 

22.  Again,  the  vague  indefiniteness  of  "I'lZJS  in  some  of  the  pas- 
sages referred  to  argues  conclusively,  it  seems  to  me,  against  its 
demonstrative  character.  While  Til  always  points  to  something 
definite  and  near  at  hand  (or  at  least  as  present  to  the  speaker's  or 
writer's  imagination;  cf.  II  Kings  5:7),  never  denying  its  distinctly 
demonstrative  nature,  "i^"55  is  very  often  intangibly  vague  and  color- 
less, similar  to  "wherever"  or  "wheresoever,"  etc.  Take  the  pas- 
sage Exod.  5:11  quoted  above,  "get  you  straw,"  ^SH^JFI  "I'JJi^p . 
Here  there  is  no  trace  of  a  demonstrative  idea,  the  Pharaoh  plainly 
ndicating  that  he  does  not  know,  and  does  not  care,  where  the 
Israelites  may  obtain  the  necessary  straw  for  their  brickmaking. 
But  what  a  radical  change  in  the  meaning  if  we  were  to  substitute 
ni'Z  for  ^'J^^P !  Yet,  according  to  Baumann's  theory,  this  substi- 
tution ought  to  occasion  little  or  no  difference  in  sense,  inasmuch 
as  Til  and  "IITN  are  not  only  supposed  to  have  the  same  origin,  but 
it  is  further  contended  that  TdJJ^  never  forfeits  its  demonstrative 
character,  even  though  employed  exclusively  in  relative  constructions. 

23.  Furthermore,  a  Semitic  demonstrative  without  any  anteced- 
ent of  place  is  never  employed  to  express  the  idea  of  motion  toward, 
whither,  as  is  the  case  with  "ITTN .  We  have  no  such  combinations 
as  HT'bSl  or  Tl'bv ,  corresponding  to  liTS'biji  and  "i"t2J!S5"bj" . 

24.  Lastly,  it  will  be  noticed  that  in  this  local  use  of  "IUJ5<  the 
adverbial  complement  (Q^ ,  T'C'uJ ,  etc.)  is  easily  dispensed  with. 
On  this  head  Baumann  says:  "Bisweilen  kommt  es  vor,  dass  das 
'Aid  mit  seiner  Praposition  ausgelassen  wird.  Das  ist  besonders 
da  der  Fall,  wo  die  gleiche  Praposition  bereits  vor  "I'JJS  steht."^ 
Among  the  passages  cited  by  him  for  sake  of  illustration  is  Exod. 
5:11,  ^S<^";ri  ^'m-2  -inn  D^b  ^np,  which  he  renders,  "Holt 
euch  Hackerling  von  dort,  von  wo  ihr  ihn  kriegen  konnt."     The 

1  Op.  cit.,  pp.  36  f. 


22  Cam.  (Saknssi.k 

repetition  of  the  ran  is  doubtless  supposed  to  illustrate  the  matter 
in  question.  But  this  is  not  a  strictly  accurate  translation,  since 
the  verb  SiS"-  is  not  construed  with  "P  ,  but  with  III  or  5  .  We  see, 
therefore,  that  the  retrospective  with  its  preposition  can  be  omitted 
even  when  the  preposition  would  be  different  from  that  preceding 
the  "^'yTS .  This  favors  the  idea  that  "l'^^^5  in  itself  implies  a  local 
signification.  An  exact  rendering  of  this  sentence  would  be:  "Holt 
euch  Hiiokerling,  von  wo  ihr  ihn  finden  konnt,"  making  the  entire 
I'i'S-clause  dependent  on  'J  } 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts,  our  conclusion  is  that  "l"£^^  is  not 
an  original  demonstrative,  but  an  original  noun  of  place,  which  in 
many  Old  Testament  passages  has  preserved  traces  of  its  primitive 
sense  in  being  employed  as  a  relative  adverb  of  place. 

25.  This  view  receives  further  confirmation  from  a  comparison 
with  other  Semitic  languages.  Speaking  of  the  adverbial  use  of 
"^"ITS  ,  Baumann  goes  on  to  say:  "In  ganz  analoger  Weise  wird  auch 
das  aramaische  Relativum  Dan.  2 :  38  gebraucht :  "^Dn  "fi";!  ^'H'bjn 
5<"j;3&|;,  'uberall  da,  wo  Menschen  wohnen. '"^  But  this  is  by  no 
means  strictly  "analogous"  to  the  passages  we  have  just  con- 
sidered. Baumann  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  Aramaic  """^  here  has 
an  antecedent  in  bSS ,  and  it  is  this  that  contains  the  local  idea, 
not  the  following  "'^ .  Even  in  English  we  may  render,  "in  all 
places  [everywhere]  that  men  live,"  instead  of  "where  men  live." 
We  are  now  dealing  with  passages  where  "luT^^  is  employed  inde- 
pendently, without  an  antecedent,  and  yet  plainly  has  a  local  signi- 
fication. To  this  usage  there  is  absolutely  no  analogy  in  biblical 
Aramaic,  as  there  is  none  in  biblical  Hebrew  in  case  of  HT .  It  is 
needless  to  say  that  there  is  no  Aramaic  ^7r^  ^s  the  corresponding 
equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  "'"'jt''^^^ .  There  are  such  expressions  as 
■'V'l'2 ,  "since";  ^V1>" ,  "until,"  donee;  ^13,  "when,"  "as  soon 
as,"  simidatque,  as  temporal  conjunctions,  a  very  easy  development 
from  an  original  demonstrative,  but  nothing  answering  to  the 
absolute  adverbial  use  of  IICS  .  In  Ezra  6 : 1  occurs  the  expression 
n^Fl  .  .  .  .  ■''n ,  but  only  after  an  antecedent  of  place,  "the  house 
of  the  archives,"  so  that  the  use  of  "''^  with  the  following  adverbial 

1  The  question  of  syntax  will  receive  full  discussion  later  on. 
»  Op.  cit.,  p.  22. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  IllJi^  23 

complement  presents  no  difficulty  or  irregularity.  Here  also  the 
local  idea  is  already  expressed  in  the  antecedent.  A  hteral  English 
rendering  would  run  as  follows:  "the  house  of  the  archives  that  the 
treasures  were  laid  up  in."  The  '^'1  has  not  lost  its  demonstrative 
nature. 

26.  Passing  on  to  the  Syriac,  we  find  that  here  also  the  use  of 
the  demonstrative  relative  ?  offers  no  parallel  to  the  use  of  1123S 
under  consideration.  It  is  never  used  in  an  adverbial  sense  without 
a  nominal  or  adverbial  antecedent,  which  shows  that  in  itself  the 
particle  has  no  local  implication.  True,  the  designation  of  place 
having  preceded,  it  may  often  be  rendered  by  "where,"  "whither," 
according  to  our  English  idiom,  but  this  does  not  mean  that  in  itself 
it  contains  this  notion.  The  difference  will  be  apparent,  if  we  com- 
pare the  Syriac  version  with  some  of  the  passages  referred  to  above: 
Ruth    1:16,   yb^  ^rbri  ndSn— Syr.    ,  M;    Ruth    1:17,   TJDS2L 

nT2S  'nr^n— Syr.  ,  izl;  Judg.  17:8,  S^r  l^n  ^^jb  — Syr. 
?  ii^]  (cf.  also  vs.  9);  Ruth  1:16,  T]bS;  ^^bn  Tj:y5  bj<— Syr.  ,  ^43; 
II  Sam.  15:20,  T^bin  ^DX  nm  by  T|bin— Syr.  h  ■^■,  Exod.  5:11, 
^5<;iTjri  ^'tr&|l":2 — Syr.  ?  j-^^^-l  ^;  and  so  in  all  passages  where 
the  texts  agree. 

27.  The  same  applies  to  the  Targum.  In  Judg.  17:8  instead  of 
Tupj^n  we  have  ^  ^ns^;  Ruth  1:16,  "^'m  bx— Targ.,  ^  ]'^2  b^b ; 
II  Sam.  15:20,  ^'m  b^— Targ.,  "H  ^n5<b ,  etc. 

28.  Even  when  "bs  precedes  T^TS ,  it  is  extremely  rare  to  find 
the  Vs  in  Syriac,  though  it  does  occur,  e.g..  Josh.  1:7,  ?|bri  TiTS'bDSl 
— Syr.  ^oiz?  vie  (Targ.,  ■'n&5  bDS).  This  corresponds  exactly 
with  ■'"^  bDIIl  in  biblical  Aramaic  (cf.  the  Daniel  passage  discussed 
above).  But  the  rule  is  that  even  here  an  antecedent  of  place  is 
substituted;  cf.  the  following  passages:  I  Sam.  14:47,  TJ3i<"bD21 
HDS":— Syr.  ,  iL]i  (Targ.,  "1  ^nS  bDS);  II  Sam.  8:14,  '\-m  bsn 
-bn— Syr.  ,  ill.;  Judg.  2:15,  m^^  TiX  brS— Syr.  ,  jl:^  (Targ., 
^   -^nX  b2S);    II  Sam.   7:9,  Fl^bn  nipS  bDS— Syr.  y^  (Targ., 

29.  The  fact  that  in  all  these  passages  there  is  either  a  nominal 
or  adverbial  antecedent,  that  the  particle  ?  nowhere  stands  alone, 


24  Carl  CIaenssle 

as  is  so  fr(Miu(Mitly  (he  case  witli  "^'vTS  ,  shows  clearl}^  that  the  latter 
must  contain  a  local  idea  which  is  al)sent  from  the  Sj^riac  demon- 
strative. 

30.  Coming  now  lo  i\\c  Arabic,  it  is  well  known  that  the  relative 
^Jj!  is  never  useil  as  an  adverb  in  any  sense.     Tliis  fact  deserves 

to  be  well  noted,  inasmuch  as  Baumann  bases  his  conclusions  as  to 
the  character  and  syntax  of  "ilTii  largely  on  the  supposed  analogy 
between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Arabic.  But  singularly  enough  this 
analogy  fails  completely,  as  Baumann  is  obliged  to  confess,  respect- 
ing the  local  adverbial  use  of  I^S .  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the 
demonstrative  adverbs  in  Arabic  are  never  employed  in  the  sense  of 
"where"  or  "whither."  Such  are  \j^ ,  UpUc  ,  oJUii ,  dULjo , 
which,  according  to  Reckendorf,  are  formed  on  the  analogy  of  the 
demonstratives  lo  ,  I lX^  ,  c)!  J  ,  and  vJU  j  ,^  but,  true  to  their 
demonstrative  nature,  they  never  can  perform  the  function  of  a 
relative,  "where"  or  "whither"  being  expressed  by  ^.^/.j^  ,  an  original 
noun.  This  oyv:^  ,  again,  is  frequently  dependent  on  a  preposition, 
e.g.,  viJ^,  "where"  (eig.  a?iwo2);  oJUi.  Jl,  "to  where,"  "whither" 
(eig.  nach  wo-) ;  vi>.Ai»  j^wo ,  "from  where"  (eig.  von  wo^).     One  cannot 

fail  to  notice  the  striking  analogy  between  this  mode  of  expression 
and  the  Hebrew  ^ITSS  ,  ^ZS  b^  ,  ^'^^'2  .  We  have  here  in  Arabic 
the  same  development  that  we  are  vindicating  for  the  Hebrew  "iTIJi^ . 
Like  loJS ,  the  Arabic  c:aa^  also  appears  without  a  preposition  in 
the  sense  of  "where"  or  "whither." 

31.  Respecting  the  Assyrian,  it  is  well  known  that  the  demonstra- 
tive relative  s  a  ,  when  used  alone,  never  has  an  adverbial  meaning. 
Like  the  corresponding  "^  or  ?  it  requires  an  antecedent  of  place, 
e.g.,  alu  sa  asbu,  "the  city  in  which  they  live,"  or  more  literally, 
"the  city  that  they  live  [in]."     The  same  applies  to  the  Ethiopic  H . 

32.  In  consideration  of  these  facts,  it  must  be  admitted  that  1*JJS 
in  its  adverbial  use  holds  a  unique  place  among  Semitic  relatives. 
These  facts  do  not  receive  due  recognition  by  the  defenders  of  the 
demonstrative  theory.  To  me  they  justify  the  conclusion  that  "niJX 
must  have  a  different  origin  from  that  of  the  demonstrative  relatives 

1  Syntaktische   Verhdllnisse  des  Arabischen,  §  150. 
=  Reckendorf,  op.  cil.,  §  10. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  Tl2J5<  25 

in  other  dialects.  In  the  passages  referred  to  above  we  can  still 
discern  the  traces  of  the  substantive  origin  of  our  particle.  But  this, 
of  course,  is  not  meant  to  imply  that  a  sense  of  its  nominal  character 
was  still  alive  in  the  Sprachbewusstsein  of  the  writers.  If  such  had 
been  the  case,  such  combinations  as  Tup5<  Dip/J ,  occurring  else- 
where, could  scarcely  have  arisen.  We  should  not  venture  to  trans- 
late ■'^5^21  "in  the  place  where,"  as  if  place  still  retained  its  sub- 
stantive force.  What  we  contend  is  that  we  have  here  the  petrified 
remains,  as  it  were,  of  an  earlier  stage  of  the  language,  when  "^ITi^  was 
actually  used  as  and  felt  to  be  a  noun  of  place.  In  the  stage  repre- 
sented by  the  records  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  "^^^  had  already, 
in  these  passages,  become  a  relative  adverb. 

33.  If  our  investigation  thus  far  has  made  the  substantive  origin 
of  "i"i'i<  at  least  highly  probable,  this  probability  is  heightened  almost 
into  certainty  when  we  compare  with  "i  uS  the  Assyrian  a  s  r  u  ,  constr. 
a  s  a  r  .  Kraetzschmar,  in  the  article  in  Hebraica  referred  to  above, 
has  collected  a  number  of  passages  illustrating  the  use  of  a  s  a  r  :^ 
Taylor,  IV,  22-24 :  munnaribsunu  .  .  .  .  asar  ikasadu 
urassapu  ina  kakke,*  "  their  fugitives  they  killed  with  their 
weapons  where  they  overtook  them";  Taylor,  III,  88  f.:  asar 
birka  manahti  isa  sir  aban  sadi  usibma,*  "where  my 
knees  found  a  resting-place  I  sat  down  on  the  top  of  the  mountain"; 
CH,-  XXIX,  42:  summa  zinnistu  sii  asar  erubu  .  .  .  . 
mare  ittalaad,  "if  that  woman  bear  children  where  she  has 
entered";  CH,  XX,  48:  asar  iddinu,  "where  they  give";  CH, 
XVII,  8,  9:  summa  asar  illiku  nemeiam  la  itamar, 
"if  he  does  not  meet  with  success  [there]  whither  he  goes";  VR, 
II,  20:  Tarku  asar  innabtu  rasubat  kakke  Asur 
ishupsuma,*  "the  weapons  of  Asur  overthrew  Tirhaka  [there] 
w/iiY/ier  he  had  fled";  Asurb.  Sm.  125,  61:  asar  tallaki  ittiki 
lullik,*  "whither  thou  goest,  I  will  go  with  thee";  Asurb.  Sm.: 
asar  panuki  saknu  tebuku  anaku,  "I  shall  go  whither 
your  face  is  directed."  Examples  of  this  type  are  very  common; 
further  citation  is  unnecessary. 

34.  Comparing  this  use  of  a  s  a  r  with  that  of  I'lIJi^  in  the  examples 
heretofore  cited,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  only  difference  is  that  "l'a;^5 

1  Hebraica,  VI  (1890),  296  f.     These  passages  I  shall  indicate  with  an  asterisk  (*). 
s  Code  of  Hammurabi,  edition  by  R.  F.  Harper. 


20  Carl  (^.ap^nssle 

takes  a  pre]X)sition,  while  asar  does  not.  Ruth  1:16,  ^oJS'bx 
T|bs  "^bri ,  would  be  exactly  the  same  as  asar  t  a  1 1  a  k  i  i  1 1  i  k  i 
1  li  1 1  i  k  but  for  the  preposition  bi^  before  "ilIJl^  .  This  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  ■'"*23i<  has  lost  its  local  signification  to  a  greater 
extent,  has  become  more  vagije  and  colorless  than  asar.  How- 
ever, I  have  found  several  passages  in  the  Amarna  Tablets  where 
asar  appears  in  conjunction  with  a  preposition.  Cf.  anaku 
kadu  sabi-ia  .  .  .  .  ana  pani  sabi  beli-ia  adi  a§ar 
tilaku,  "I  together  with  my  troops  ....  am  at  the  service  of 
the  troops  of  my  lord,  wherever  they  may  go."^  Exactly  the  same 
construction  occurs  in  the  following  letter.  The  preposition  may  be 
omitted  (and  as  a  rule  is  omitted).  Cf.  asar  tilaku  [sc.  the 
troops]  anaku  it[tisunu],  "wherever  they  may  go  I  am  with 
them";-  anaku  kadu  .  .  .  .  ana  pani  sabi  bitati  adi 
asar  jikabu  sarru  beli-ia,  "I  together  with  ....  am  at 
the  service  of  the  troops  wherever  the  king,  my  lord,  may  com- 
mand" (Winckler:  "wohin  auch  befiehlt  der  Konig,  meinHerr").^ 
Asar  is  also  united  with  the  preposition  i  n  a ;  cf .  h  a  r  r  a  n  u  i  n  a 
asar  asib,  "the  way  to  where  he  dwells."*  The  ina  asar  here 
is  equivalent  to  ina  asri  sa  used  elsewhere,  e.g.,  anaku 
arduka  in  asri  sa  ibasati,  "I  am  thy  servant  in  the  place 
where  I  am."^  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  ina  asri  and  ina 
asar  are  used  in  exactly  the  same  constructions;  cf.  ina  asri 
anni,  "in  that  place "^  and  ina  asar  sanim,  "in  another 
place. "^  This  shows  that  the  dividing  line  between  the  strictly 
substantive  and  the  hardened  (erstarrt)  adverbial  form  of  a  s  r  u  was 
in  process  of  obliteration.  That  an  adverb  should  connect  itself 
with  a  preposition  is,  as  is  well  known,  a  very  common  phenomenon. 
Thus  the  Arabic  X4^  ,  as  already  stated,  is  employed  indifferently 
with  or  without  a  preposition.  Cf.  also  in  Latin  hinc  and  dehinc; 
inde  and  deinde;  in  English  "hence,"  and  "from  hence";  "whence" 
and  "from  whence,"  etc.  Even  to  the  singular  asar  sanim, 
just  referred  to,  where  the  changeless  adverbial  asar  is  united 
with  an  attribute,  I  venture  to  offer  a  modern  parallel  in  such 

1  KB,  V.  251.  15  f.  ♦  Ibid.,  46,  26.  •  Ibid.,  179,  11. 

2  Op.  cit.,  214,  34.  '  Ibid.,  2.38,  4  f.  '  Ibid.,  126,  17. 
>Ibid.,  144,  31. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  1123X  27 

expressions  as  "everywhere,"  "nowhere,"  and  others,  which  exhibit 
the  same  tendencies  of  language. 

It  is  plain  from  the  above  that  the  usage  of  ^iTSJ^  and  asar 
agrees  more  closely  than  has  been  generally  recognized, 

35.  We  shall  now  quote  some  passages  in  which  asar  appears 
with  an  antecedent,  and,  in  order  to  present  the  Hebrew  analogy 
vividly  to  the  eye,  corresponding  passages  from  the  Old  Testament 
will  be  added. 

Shal.  69:  adi  res  (naru)  eni  sa  (naru)  Diklat  asar 
musu  sa  me  saknu  alik,*  "to  the  source  of  the  Tigris 
where  the  springs  of  water  are  situated  I  went";  Hebrew  (Num. 
20:13):  h^'^'^'',  "?n  ^nn  -^m  nn^-!7J  ^2  nan,  "these  are  the 
waters  of  Meriba  where^  the  children  of  Israel  contended."  VR, 
VIII,  108  ff.:  Mas  asar  .  .  .  .  issur  same  la  isakan  kinu* 
[the  land]  Mas,  "where  no  bird  of  heaven  builds  its  nest";  Hebrew 

(Ps.  84:4):  "^nnsN!  Hn'^  mry?  nb  ip,  nini^  n";n  ni^'r'2  nis::-D:», 

"Yea,  the  sparroAV  hath  found  a  house  and  the  swallow  a  nest 
for  herself  where  she  may  lay  her  young."  And  so  frequently  in 
the  sense  of  "where"  both  in  Assyrian  and  in  Hebrew.  Cf.  for  the 
Hebrew  Deut.  1:31;  8:15;  I  Kings  8:9;  Isa.  64:10;  Ezek.  47:13; 
Ps.  95:9,  and  many  more  passages. 

36.  Like  asar,  i"JJ&5  is  also  employed  in  the  sense  of  "whither." 
VR,  X,  13f.:  ultu  sade  bit  markitisu  asar  ittanapra- 
sidu,*  "from  the  mountain,  his  refuge,  whither  he  had  fled"; 
Hebrew  (I  Kings  12:2;  II  Chron.  10:2):  rn^  ^m  U^';^'2'2^  i^^ni , 
"and  he  was  in  Egypt,  whither  he  had  fled." 

37.  We  can  trace  the  affinity  between  asar  and  "112355  a  step 
farther.  Sometimes  the  asar,  which  in  this  case  has  almost  lost 
its  local  coloring  and  passed  into  a  relative  particle  pure  and  simple, 
is  so  indefinite  as  to  take  an  'Aid  in  the  form  of  a  noun  of  place 
with  its  respective  suffix.  Thus,  instead  of  the  simple  asar  in 
the  sense  of  "where,"  there  occurs  asar  .  .  .  .  kirib  with  the 
suffix  as  the  exact  equivalent  of  sa  .  .  .  .  ina  libbi.  This 
shows  conclusively  that  asar  was  well  under  way  to  become  a 
general  relative  particle,  the  only  reason  why  it  did  not  reach  this 
stage  being,  as  Kraetzschmar  says,  the  fact  that  it  never  ceased  to  be 

>  Not  "  because,"  as  the  English  versions  render.     Vulg.  ubi  jurgati  sunt. 


28  Carl  Gaenssle 

a  noun  of  place.  To  illustrate:  I  n  a  h  i  d  a  t  i  e  r  u  I)  B  i  t  r  i  d  u  t  i 
§a  Sinachd-er ha  isarriiti  epusu  ina  lihhisu  a§ar 
A§ur-ahe-id(l  ina  ahu  hanua  kiribsu  aldu.'  In  this 
passage,  the  a§ar  .  .  .  .  kirihsu  has  precisely  the  same  meaning 
as  s  a  .  .  .  .  ina  1  i  b  b  i  S  u  ,  showing  very  plainly  to  what  extent 
the  local  signification  of  a§ar  was  fading  away.  Besides,  who  can 
fail  to  notice  in  this  construction  of  a§ar  with  the  following 
resumptive  k  i  r  i  b  s  u  a  striking  and  unquestionable  analogy  to  the 
Hebrew  "i">ri<  with  the  complementary  i3"^pll  ? 

38.  Winckler,  in  his  edition  of  the  Amarna  Letters,  holds  that 
in  some  instances  a  s  a  r  is  used  interchangeably  with  §  a ,  even 
where  no  local  idea  is  involved;  in  other  words,  that  a§ar  has  lost 
its  original  meaning  altogether.  It  is  not  necessary  to  cite  all  the 
passages  he  refers  to  in  the  glossary  under  this  head,  since  they  are 
all  of  one  character.  Two  will  suffice :  KAR .  KAR  pi.  sa  hurasu 
.  .  .  .  asar  abi-i-ka  ma  Mi-im-mu-u-ri-a  i-ti-ri-is, 
"Bilder  aus  Gold  ....  habe  ich  von  deinem  Vater  M.  verlangt";^ 
hurasu  ma-a-at-ta  asar  abi-i  [ka-i-ti-r  i-]  is ,  "von 
deinem  Vater  habe  ich  verlangt  viel  Gold."^  The  supposed  identity 
between  asar  and  sa  is  not  brought  out  by  the  translation  von. 
But  Winckler  must  assume  that  asar  is  here  used  like  s  a  as  the 
sign  of  the  genitive,  viz.,  "much  gold,  that  of  thy  father."  But 
this  view  is  hardly  correct.  More  commonly  the  verb  e  r  e  s  u  ,  with 
which  the  asar  is  construed,  appears  with  the  preposition  ana,  e.g., 
ana  ahi-ia  hurasi  ma-a-at-ta  e-te-ri-is,  " ich verlangte 
WW  meinem  Bruder  viel  Gold " ;^  mi-ri-is-ta  ma  sa  ana  abi- 
ka  i-ri-su,  "  den  Wunsch,  den  ich  an  deinen  Vater  stellte  "^  (with 
the  figura  etymologica) .  The  use  of  ana,  as  the  translation  of  the 
last  example  indicates,  shows  that  the  wish  or  request  expressed  in 
e  r  e  s  u  is  conceived  as  being  addressed  to  or  directed  toward  someone 
(cf.  the  German,  "jemand  anflehen,  angehen,"  French,  "demander 
d"  etc.).  And  since  asar  interchanges  with  ana  in  connection 
with  this  verb,  I  should  assign  to  it  the  sense  of  to  or  toward,  thus 
allowing  it  to  retain  a  local  notion.     I  would  add  that  Winckler's 

1  Hebraica,  July.  1890.  «  Ibid.,  17,  34. 

»  KB.  V.  23,  19  f.  s  Ibid.,  35,  11  r. 

'  Ibid..  21.  50  Rev. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  T123!j<  29 

view  is  also  rejected  by  Boehl,  though  the  latter  offers  no  explana- 
tion for  this  singular  use  of  a  s  a  r  .^ 

39.  The  preceding  discussion  has,  it  is  hoped,  made  two  things 
clear:  first,  that  ITIJlJ^  cannot  be  classed  with  the  ordinary  Semitic 
relatives,  and,  secondly,  that  the  Assyrian  asar  quite  closely  cor- 
responds with  it  in  its  adverbial  use.  Our  conclusion,  therefore, 
is  that  ""123J^  not  only  lost  its  substantive  force  by  becoming  a  rela- 
tive adverb,  but  developed  into  a  broad  and  general  nota  relationis, 
a  mere  medium  of  relation,^  sometimes  untranslatable,  as  we  shall 
see,  except  by  periphrasis. 

40.  The  obvious  objection  to  this  is,  of  course,  the  singular  and 
isolated  position  of  Hebrew  in  Semitic  as  regards  the  relative,  since 
in  the  other  Semitic  dialects  a  demonstrative  performs  this  function. 
I  recognize  the  force  of  this  objection.  However,  the  difficulties 
attending  every  attempt  at  locating  "I'^TS  among  the  demonstratives 
are  insurmountable,  etymologically  as  well  as  syntactically,  as  we 
shall  see  later  on.  The  history  of  a  s  r  u  in  Assyrian  shows  a  develop- 
ment in  the  direction  of  the  Hebrew  "I'lTS .  Why  should  not  this 
development  have  been  carried  a  step  farther  in  Hebrew,  until  ITTi^ 
had  worn  away  into  a  vague  relative  particle  ?  Even  oriental  lan- 
guages are  not  absolutely  stationary.  Development  there  is  in  every 
living  language.  At  all  events,  rather  than  have  recourse  to  the 
wild  and  baseless  etymologies  referred  to  in  order  to  force  "I'JJS  into 
one  mold  with  Semitic  demonstratives,  rather,  too,  than  insist  on 
the  demonstrative  character  of  l"aJ5< ,  while  leaving  the  matter  of 
etymology  in  suspense,^  I  prefer  to  believe,  for  reasons  already 
stated,  that  in  the  present  instance  the  Hebrew  language  pursued 
an  independent  course  in  expressing  the  relative  idea,  a  course, 
however,  already  far  under  way,  though  not  carried  to  completion, 
in  the  Assyrian.  Nevertheless,  Gesenius'  grammar,  following 
Baumann,  says  that  "Ti235<  ist  weder  als  Relativpronomen  .... 
noch  als  blosse  nota  relationis,  sondern  als  urspriingliches  Demon- 
strativpronomen  zu  betrachten."     And  in  proof  of  this  statement 

'  Die  Sprache  der  Amarnabriefe,  §  17. 

'  This  designation  is  not  always  adequate.  The  fact  that  the  retrospective  com- 
plement is  often  omitted  indicates  that  the  particle  showed  a  tendency  to  assume  a  more 
or  less  definite  pronominal  function. 

»  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  §  138,  note  1. 


30  Caul  (Jaenssle 

it  is  tuldetl  in  a  note:  ''Zu  dioscr  Annahme  notigt  cbcnsowohl  die 
analogic  des  arabischen  alladi,  welches  (wie  Hebr.  T^H  ,  npil) 
deutlich  Demonstrativj)rononien,  wie  der  Gebrauch  von  HT  und 
^T  als  Relativpronomen."'  Sujjpose  a  grammarian  should  maintain 
that,  l)e('ause  the  original  demonstrative  "that"  is  used  relatively 
in  English,  the  relative  "who"  must  also  be  a  demonstrative,  or 
that  since  the  German  uses  der,  die,  das,  originally  demonstratives, 
OS  relatives,  welcher,  welche,  welches  (or  vulgarly  wo)  must  also  be 
demonstratives,  would  it  not  be  a  palpably  erroneous  conclusion? 
And  so  it  is  when  we  reason  from  alladi  or  HT  to  1 UJX .  The 
argument  is  valueless,  because  it  rests  on  the  assumption  of  the 
invariable  uniformity  and  immutable  fixedness  of  Semitic  grammar. 
That  even  a  Semitic  language  may  exhibit  peculiarities  unknown 
to  sister-dialects  is  seen,  for  instance,  in  the  waw  consecutive  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Moabite,  of  which  there  is  no  trace  in  Assyrian  and 
other  languages. 

41.  Before  leaving  this  part  of  our  discussion,  I  cannot  refrain 
from  calling  attention  to  numerous  analogies  from  other  fields. 
These,  while  not  proving  the  correctness  of  our  theory  of  "I'oJS ,  will, 
at  least,  abundantly  show  that  we  are  not  trying  to  defend  an  unparal- 
leled grammatical  phenomenon.  Indeed,  it  is  surprising  to  note 
that  in  various  and,  in  part,  widely  divergent  languages  the  same 
tendencies  were  at  work  as  those  underlying  the  development  of 
■^'kTS ,  such  as  we  conceive  it  to  have  been.  Thus  we  are  told  that 
in  Chinese  the  word  so,  originally  a  noun  of  place,  is  employed  as  a 
relative.  The  Persian  L^iO  ,  "wo  des  Orts,"  was  originally  used  Uke 
the  common  relative  x5^.-  But  the  nearest  approach  to  the  Hebrew 
I'vL'X ,  though  still  more  specific,  is  the  wo  of  the  provincial  dialects 
of  Southern  Germany,  which  in  colloquial  language  is  employed 
almost  exclusively  as  a  general  relative  particle,  e.g.,  "der  Mann, 
wo'';  "die  Frau,  wo'';  "das  Kind,  wo."  Like  the  Hebrew  iTTi^ , 
this  wo  is  of  course  incapable  of  inflection;  and  though  the  Sprach- 
gefiihl  instinctively  distinguishes  between  the  nominative  and 
accusative  cases  (cf.  "Der  Freund,  wo  mich  besuchte,"  and  "der 
Freund,  wo  ich  besuchte"),  it  serves,  as  a  rule,  merely  as  a  connective 

'  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  §  138. 
•Cf,  Kraetzschmar,  Hebraica,  July,  1890. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  IISS^  31 

between   the  principal  and  subordinate   clauses,  the  precise   syn- 
tactic relation  being   indicated   by  a   retrospective  in   the   clause 
which  wo  introduces;   cf.  "der  Mann,  wo  seine  Frau  gestorben  ist" 
(Hebr.  in'OJi^  '^"^^);  "der  Mann,  wo  das  Haus  ihm  abgebrannt  ist" 
(Hebr.  ib  .  .  .  .  '^^^);  "der  Baum,  wo  ich  dir  verboten  habe  von 
ihm  zu  essen"  (Hebr.  ^3^"^  ....  '^^^);   "wo  sein  Same  drin  ist" 
(Hebr.  iS  "i"j:X).     Even  in  polite  language,  the  German  uses  wo 
compounded  with  a  preposition  instead  of  the  ordinary  relative  with 
its  preposition,  though  with  certain  restrictions;  cf.  worin  for  in  wel- 
chem,  in  welcher;  wovon  for  von  welchem,  welcher;  womit  for  7nit  welchem, 
welcher  (used  instrumentally) .     Very  suggestive,  too,  are  the  ad- 
verbial expressions  in  German  in  such  phrases  as  "wo  er  /iingegangen 
ist,"  or  wo  er  /lergekommen  ist,"  which  are  quite  parallel  to  the 
Hebrew  n^JlT  ....  n'iJS  and  n^'2  ....  ^ITK .      It  is  true  that 
the  Hebrew  "idiom  cannot  in  all  cases  be  dupUcated  in  German. 
The  German  has  nothing  to  correspond  with  DIT  .  .  .  .  "i'ffi&^ ,  for 
the  reason  that  wo,  though  requiring  a  complement  (except  as  nomina- 
tive or  accusative)  when  employed  as  a  general  relative  particle,  has 
so  far  retained  its  primary  sense,  when  used  as  a  relative  adverb, 
that  it  does  not  admit  of  a  complementary  adjunct.     The  Hebrew 
JTi^ri    n'^"^'m    nVinri    Y■l.^^"b^    could    not    be    rendered    "das 
ganVe  Land  Havilah,  wo  Gold  doriist,"  in  strict  correspondence  with 
the  Hebrew,  but  simply  "wo  Gold  ist."     In  other  words,  the  Hebrew 
HITS  is  more  indefinite  than  the  German  wo. 

42.  A  similar,  though  more  limited,  use  of  the  relative  adverb 
for  the  relative  pronoun  is  also  found  in  English;  cf.  "wherein," 
"whereon,"  "whereby,"  "wherewith,"  etc.  And,  although  at 
present  obsolete,  this  use  of  the  adverb  is  found  even  when  the  latter 
refers  to  a  perso7ial  antecedent;  cf.  "Edward's  seven  sons,  whereof 
thyself  art  one"  (Shak.,  Rich.  II,  I,  2). 

43.  The  same  phenomenon  is  observable  in  French,  where  the 
adverb  ou  likewise  encroaches  upon  the  territory  of  the  relative: 
"C'est  une  chose  ou  je  te  reduirai"  (Moliere,  Uavare,  Act  I,  scene 
iv).  Ou  is  very  often  equivalent  to  dans,  a,  sur,  etc.,  plus  a  relative 
pronoun. 

44.  Also  the  Latin  uhi  sometimes  loses  its  local  meaning  entirely 
and  does  the  duty  of  a  relative,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  following 


32  C'ahl  CJaenssle 

examples;  Iluiu^niodi  mi  res  semper  comminiscere,  ubi  me  excarnijices, 
"You  are  always  devising  things  of  this  kind,  with  which  [ubi  =  quibus] 
to  torture  me";'  neque  7iobis  adhuc  praeter  te  quisquam  fuit,  ubi 
nostrum  ius  contra  illos  obtineremus;'^  in  this  sentence,  ubi  refers  to  a 
person  and  is  equivalent  to  with  whom;'^  quia  suppeditat  nobis  ubi 
et  animus  ex  hoc  forensi  strepitu  reficiatur,  "because  he  furnishes 
[that]  with  which,"  etc.,"*  ubi  being  equivalent  to  quo  instrumental. 

45.  These  examples  from  various  languages  will  suffice  to  show 
to  what  extent  a  relative  adverb  of  place,  forfeiting  its  local  meaning, 
has  tended  to  assume  pronominal  functions,  or  to  fade  away  into 
what  is  hardly  more  than  a  medium  of  relation.  As  remarked, 
therefore,  the  development  and  use  of  ^'l'^^  in  Hebrew  represents 
but  one  of  many  kindred  phenomena  in  the  history  of  language. 

B.      THE    SYNTACTIC    RELATION    OF   ^'iTNl 
a)    CRITICISM   OF   BAUMANN's  THEORY 

46.  The  substantive  origin  of  liTK  is  of  vital  importance  in 
determining  the  syntactic  position  of  the  particle.  I  trust  that  the 
conclusions  arrived  at  with  reference  to  the  origin  of  ^IIJS  will  receive 
fuller  confirmation  in  the  following  pages,  in  which  we  shall  discuss 
the  syntax.  The  latter,  as  I  hope  to  show,  su])stantiates  the  etymo- 
logical theory  defended  in  the  first  part  of  this  treatise.  In  the 
nature  of  the  case,  the  following  syntactic  discussion  will  be  largely 
a  polemic  against  the  view  of  Boettcher,  Baumann,  and  (after  them) 
the  standard  grammar  of  Gesenius-Kautzsch.  Baumann  being 
the  chief  representative  of  the  demonstrative  theory  (both  as  to 
origin  and  as  to  syntax),  we  may  fitly  begin  by  setting  forth  his 
views. 

47.  Baumann  firmly  and  steadfastly  maintains  that  I'lJi^  intro- 
ducing relative  clauses  belongs  logically  and  syntactically  not  to 
the  relative  clause,  but  to  the  principal  proposition.  There  is  no 
subordination,  but  only  co-ordination,  no  hypotaxis,  but  only 
parataxis.     If  a  relative  clause  has  an  antecedent,  the  I'lTH  belongs 

'  Terence  H eautonlimoroumenos  813. 

2  Cicero  Pro  P.  Quinctio  oratio  34. 

»  Here,  perhaps,  a  trace  of  local  meaning  is  still  discernible. 

*  Cicero  Pro  Archia. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  TllJS  33 

to  this  antecedent  as  an  appositional  demonstrative.  "  HaJJ^  ist 
weiter  nichts,  als  eine  den  Attributivsatz  einleitende  demonstrative 
Apposition  zum  Hauptwort.''^  Or:  "Das  hebraische  Relativum 
ist  eine  den  Relativsatz  einleitende  demonstrative  Apposition  zum 
Beziehungswort  und  verbindet  die  folgende  Aussage  mit  demselben 
als  etwas  von  ihm  Auszusagendes."-  If  the  relative  clause  has  no 
antecedent  (selbstdndiger  Relativsatz),  "i"i2Ji< ,  according  to  Baumann, 
is  used  substantively  in  the  sense  of  jener  (der),  jene  (die),  jenes 
(das),  soldier  {der),  etc.,^  and  has  no  syntactic  connection  with  the 
relative  clause.  Syntactically,  it  belongs  to  the  main  sentence,  of 
which  it  may  be  subject  or  object,  or  it  may  depend  on  a  preposition, 
or  on  a  regens  of  a  nominal  nature,  in  which  case  ^oJX  is  virtually  a 
genitive.*  The  point  that  Baumann  insists  on  here  is  that  the 
substantive  use  of  1"aJ5<  does  not  involve  the  elhpsis  of  a  demon- 
strative like  the  absolute  use  of  qui  for  (is)  qui,  since  ^'JJS  is  itself 
a  simple  demonstrative,  and  if  there  is  anything  to  be  supplied,  it 
is  rather  the  relative  according  to  our  notions.  As  just  remarked, 
^oJX  in  such  sentences  is  equivalent  to  is,  ille  (qui),  and  not  (is), 
(ille)  qui. 

48.  Consistently  with  this  view  of  the  syntactic  position  of  "^oJU^ 
Baumann  explains  the  Jol^  .  In  dependent  clauses,  that  is,  such  as 
have  an  antecedent,  the  retrospective  does  not  point  back  to  ^'iJN , 
but  resumes  the  antecedent,  while  in  independent  clauses,  in  which 
"I125S  is  used  substantively,  the  retrospective,  of  course,  must  refer 
to  this.  The  following  examples  with  Baumann's  rendering  will 
illustrate  the  foregoing:  Jer.  28:9,  "in^  inb'oj  1'u:X  ^^^22",  ''der 
Prophet,  der,  Jahwe  hat  ihn  gesandt";  Num.  17:20,  ^TTS  "oj^J^n 
iS"innX ,  "der  Mann,  jener,  ich  werde  ihn  erwahlen";  Deut. 
28:49,  ijirb  :7:^irrT5<b  "^t^  -i:*,  "ein  Volk,  ein  solches,  du  ver- 
stehst  seine  Sprache  nicht.''^  Deut.  27:26,  0^7^''  ^"^^  ^^"^^"^ 
rii<TrTn'^'inn  ^"^nvrs^  ,  "  verflucht  sei  derjenige,  welcher  den  Inhalt 
dieses  Gesetzes  nicht  in  Kraft  treten  lasst."  Here  we  have  the 
independent  use  of  "I'^IJi^ .  Baumann's  rendering  in  this  instance, 
being   freer,    does   not   indicate   clearly   the   syntactic   relation   of 

1  Relativsatze.  p.  20.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  21  f. 

»  Ibid.,  p.  30.  5  Ibid.,  pp.  14  f. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  20. 


34  Carl  Gaenssle 

1'^^^< .  But  the  comment  which  he  adds  makes  this  sufficiently  plain. 
He  says:  "Hier  konnte  man  versucht  sein,  "I'JJl^^  fiir  das  gram- 
matische  Subjekt  des  Relativsatzes  zu  halten,  doch  auch  im  vorlie- 
genden  Falle  gilt:  Es  steht  ■•'i'i^  a))S()lut  [i.e.,  unconnected,  detached] 
an  der  Spitze  der  beziiglichen  Aussage  und  hat  syntaktisch  mit 
ihr  nichts  zu  tun."'  Consequently,  according  to  Baumann's  mode 
of  rendering,  the  sentence  would  run  as  follows:  "Cursed  be  such  a 
one  [^CS]— he  does"  not  establish,"  etc.  Gen.  44:10,  Sy^a*;  ^'^ 
"!->  "^'•^1"!'  "^^^  >  "derjenige,  bei  dem  er  [sc.  der  Becher]  sich  findet, 
soil  mein  Sklave  sein";  precisely,  to  avoid  a  possible  misconception 
arising  from  the  use  of  "whom,"  the  sentence  should  read:  "That 
one  [■'u^S] — ^it  [sc.  the  cup]  shall  be  found  with  him — shall  be  my 
servant,"  "I'lIS  being  clearly  detached  from  the  relative  clause. 
Ruth  2:2,  r:'^_^  -r  S^3^5  ^TS<  ^nx,  "Hinter  demjenigen,  in 
dessen  Augen  ich  Gnade  finden  werde";^  literally:  "After  him,  or 
such  a  one — I  shall  find  favor  in  his  eyes."  Gen.  49:1,  rn^3bi 
D"C;'-  n^^nsn  DSnS  J^-^p-^-^iri^  nx  DDb ,  literally  translated  by 
Baumann  thus:  "Icli  will  euch  mitteilen  jenes  (von  dem  auszusagen 
ist);  es  wird  euch  in  der  fernsten  Zukunft  widerfahren."'  On  this 
passage  Baumann  remarks :  "  Da  nun  "ilIJX  durch  Ti^  als  im  Accusativ 
stehend  gekennzeichnet  ist,  so  zeigt  sich  klar,  dass  es  dem  Haupt- 
satzgefiige  angehort  und  von  HTTti^  abhangig  ist,  d.h.  es  ist  nicht 
ein  Relativum,  sondern  .  .  .  .  ein  Demonstrativum."*  The  fact, 
therefore,  that  "i-!}<  is  preceded  by  the  sign  of  the  accusative  is 
supposed  to  put  an  end  to  all  controversy.  Baumann  is  so  fully 
convinced  of  this  that  he  declares  on  the  next  page  (21)  that  these 
passages  must  serve  as  a  guide  in  dealing  with  others  in  which  the 
syntactic  position  of  "iiZJS  is  not  thus  outwardly  indicated.  As  to 
the  validity  of  this  argument,  we  shall  have  more  to  say  later  on. 

49.  Another  phenomenon  to  which  Baumann  attaches  very 
much  importance  in  support  of  his  theory  of  "111^5  is  the  well-known 
fact  that  when  a  relative  clause  refers  to  an  antecedent  in  the  first 
or  second  person  the  JoLt  appears  almost  exclusively  in  the  same 
person  as  the  antecedent.  Examples:  Isa.  41:8,  ....  bi^'^ir'^  nrii< 
Tj^ri'^-jr^  ""'^'^ )  which  Baumann  renders,  "Du,  Israel,  das,  ich  habe 

«  Relativsdtze,  pp.  21  f.  >  Pp.  20  f. 

2  P.  22.  «  P.  20. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "ilIJi<  35 

dich  erwahlet";  Isa.  51:17,  H^n^  T7J  n^n^'  ^'j:Si_  D^b^^"i''  ^12^p 
*in"^H  CiSTlii,  "stehe  auf,  Jerusalem,  das  aus  Jahwes  Hand  den 
Becher  seines  Zornes  getrunken  hat";  literally  this  would  run, 
"Stehe  auf,  Jerusalem,  das,  du  hast  getrunken,"  etc.;  Gen.  45:4, 
^n^  DrT)57^-nipy:  nrni<  -CV^Dy|,  ''ich  bin  Joseph,  euer  Bruder, 
jener,  ihr  habt  mich  verkauft."^  The  possibihty  of  such  construc- 
tions, Baumann  remarks,  reveals  the  nature  and  syntactic  position 
of  the  Hebrew  relative.- 

50.  Baumann's  theory,  it  will  be  seen  at  a  glance,  is  dominated 
wholly  by  his  conception  of  "iir&5  as  being  not  only  a  demonstrative 
originally,  but  as  permanently  retaining  its  demonstrative  character 
in  the  Hebrew  usus  loquendi.  It  makes  no  allowance  for  a  possible 
weakening  of  the  particle.  Nor  does  it  consider  the  further  possi- 
bility of  syntactic  shifting  in  the  structure  of  a  sentence.  By  which 
I  mean  to  say  that,  though  we  grant  the  demonstrative  origin  of  "UTS  , 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  it  continued  to  attach  itself  appositionally 
to  the  antecedent.  This  point  will  receive  fuller  discussion  as  we 
proceed. 

51.  We  shall  now  examine  these  views  more  in  detail.  In  his 
study  of  the  Assyrian  relative  sa,  Kraetzschmar  remarks:  "sa 
hat  seine  ihm  anhaftende  Demonstrativnatur  nie  eingebiisst,  es 
duldet  kein  weiteres  Demonstrativum  vor  sich."^  While  this  state- 
ment is  not  quite  true  as  to  fact,*  the  argument  is  sound.  It  implies 
that  two  successive  demonstratives  cannot  belong  to  the  same  noun. 
What  Kraetzschmar  says  of  s  a ,  Gesenius-Kautzsch  says  of  "iT2Ji< . 
Having  asserted  the  demonstrative  character  of  1iI3X ,  the  grammar 
proceeds  to  say:  "Als  solches  [i.e.,  as  a  demonstrative]  zeigt  es 
sich  in  unmittelharer  Anlehnung  an  den  naher  zu  bestimmenden 
Substantivbegriff."*  Now  (assuming  Kraetzschmar's  statement  to 
be  correct)  if  the  fact  that  the  Assyrian  s  a  does  not  tolerate  another 
demonstrative  before  it  clearly  proves  that  it  never  lost  its  demon- 
strative character,  the  equally  patent  fact  that  1^23^5  does,  in  numer- 
ous cases,  tolerate  an  immediately  preceding  demonstrative  proves 


>  Ibid.,  p.  27.  2  it)id.,  p.  29. 

'  BA,  I,  399.     Italics  ours. 

<  Cf.  As^iurb.,  II,  101,  su  ttu    annitu   sa    e  m  u  r  u  ,"  that  dream  which  he  saw 

6  §  138. 


36  Caul  (Jaenssle 

witli  equal  clearness  that  it  cannot  be  a  demonstrative,  or,  at  least 
(granting  it  to  have  been  a  demonstrative  originally) ,  that  it  has  lost 
its  demonstrative  nature.  The  fact  is  that  neither  Baumann  nor 
Gesenius-Kautzsch  has  paid  any  attention  to  that  large  class  of 
passages  in  which  a  nominal  antecedent  is  followed  first  by  a  demon- 
strative, which  in  its  turn  is  followed  by  "^'JDS  .  Thus  according  to 
the  theory  that  we  are  opposing  we  should  indeed  have  the  impossible 
phenomenon  of  two  successive  demonstratives  belonging  to  the  same 
noun.  The  demonstratives  occurring  in  this  way  are  HTn  ,  ^l^^•T^  , 
n't^ri,  J^^inri,  and  l)n;  d.  Gen.  28:20,  ''pbs  ^•^^?  !^5~  'Q"^^ 
T^bin ,  "in  this  way  that  I  am  about  to  go";  Gen.  33:8,  n:n^n-b3 
■^ri'JJJE  ^ipS  n-TH ,  "all  this  company  which  I  met";  cf.  also  Gen. 
37:6,  10,  22;  44:15;  Exod.  13:3;  18:14,  18;  32:13;  33:17;  Josh. 
2:17;  14:12;  22:16;  I  Sam.  12:16;  24:20;  26:16;  II  Sam.  12:21; 
I  Kings  6:12;  8:27,43;  9:3;  12:9,10;  II  Kings  18:19;  Isa.  28:14; 
36:4;  38:7;  Jer.  7:10,  11;  25:13;  32:22,  36,  43;  33:10;  Amos 
3:1;  5:1;  Neh.  2:19;  13:17;  I  Chron.  29:16;  II  Chron.  6:18,  33; 
7:21;  10:9  (forty-four  instances  in  all).  Similarly,  "1123^1  follows 
nj<-Tn;  cf.  Gen.  28:22,  ^Fi:j"0  ''rm  nS-TH  'fl^ri'l ,  "and  this  stone 
which  I  have  set  up";  cf.,  further,  Num.  14:27;  Deut.  4:8;  11:22; 
15:6;  30:4;  Josh.  23:13,  15;  Judg.  20:12;  I  Sam.  25:27;  I 
Kings  14:15;  II  Kings  23:27;  Jer.  11:8;  13:10;  44:4;  Ezek. 
3:3;    II  Chron.  6 :  34  (seventeen  instances  in  all) .     So  also  with 

nb^ri;  cf.  Gen.  21:29,  HD^nb  m^"  ^m  nbs;-  nir'na  v:i^, 

"these  seven  ewe  lambs  which  thou  hast  set  by  themselves";  cf., 
further.  Num.  1:17;  15:22;  34:29;  Deut.  6:6;  10:21;  12:28; 
18:14;  20:16;  27:4;  Josh.  4:20;  21:19;  I  Sam.  2:22;  I  Kings 
7:45;  9:13;  II  Kings  23:17;  Jer.  38:16,  27;  43:10;  Zech.  8:17 
(perhaps  doubtful);  Neh.  6:8;  II  Chron.  32:14  (twenty-two 
instances  in  all).  Passages  with  S^nH;  cf.  Num.  10:32,  nitsri  n^ni 
rj^^  nin^  n^P".  ^IIJX  X^nn,  "and  it  shall  be  that  the  good 
which  Jahwe  shall  show  us";  cf.,  further,  Deut.  1:19;  17:5,  10; 
I  Kings  8:27,  43;  22:25;  II  Chron.  9:9  (eight  instances  in  all). 
Finally'',  there  is  one  passage  in  which  "iTpy*  is  preceded  by  75" ; 
cf.  II  Kings  23:17,  H^jn  ^]5<  nm  ibn  'yl^^^r^  n7J ,  "what  is  that 
monument  which  I  see?" 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "illJi^  37 

52.  None  of  these  passages  (ninety-two  in  all)  has,  as  already 
remarked,  been  considered  by  Baumann  or  Gesenius-Kautzsch. 
Baumann  incidentally  cites  two  of  the  passages,  but  merely  as 
illustrating  the  absence  of  the  retrospective.  I  shall  insert  one  with 
Baumann's  translation:  II  Kings  18:19,  ITTJ^  nTH  "jint^Hn  tl'2 
riM^T^,  "was  bedeutet  diese  Zuversicht,  die  du  hegst?"  This  ren- 
dering is,  of  course,  correct;  but  it  is  obtained  by  ignoring  the 
supposedly  demonstrative  force  of  "liryj .  It  would  be  interesting  if 
Baumann  had  in  this  case  also  given  a  literal  translation,  such  as 
his  theory  demands.  It  would  necessarily  run  as  follows :  "Was  ist 
diese  (n-TPi)  Zuversicht,  diese  (^TIJN) — du  hegst  (sie)?"  Or  still 
more  complete:  "Was  ist  diese  Zuversicht,  diese  (von  der  auszusagen 
ist) :  du  hegst  (sie)."  It  is  needless  to  say  that  such  syntax  is  impos- 
sible. All  these  passages  plainly  show  that  "112555  is  not  a  demon- 
strative but  that  it  is  little  more  than  the  equivalent  of  Baumann's 
parenthetical  remark,  "von  der  (dem,  denen)  auszusagen  ist,"  that 
is  to  say,  "^'^^^  is  a  mere  connective^  indicating  that  something  more 
is  to  be  said  about  the  antecedent.  I  should  like  to  call  particular 
attention  to  the  last  passage  cited  in  the  foregoing  paragraph: 
mrji  Tbn  "^^^n  n^2 .  This  ibr;  is  the  Hebrew  counterpart  of  the 
Arabic  (<<X'I  •  Are  we  to  suppose  that  "I'lTS  is,  in  effect,  another 
,^jJI  also  belonging  to  'ri'^'SXl  ? 

53.  All  these  passages  show  clearly  that  "laJS  does  not  belong 
to  the  "  Rektionsgef uge  des  Hauptsatzes."  And  it  is  these  passages 
that  must  guide  us  in  the  investigation  of  the  syntax  of  "I12J5< .  If 
in  the  sentence  Hn^jQ  TJ:i<  nTn  n^nri-n^^  ^niT'npr;  (I  Kings  3:9) 
the  particle  lIl'S  cannot  belong  to  TT^tj ,  it  cannot,  of  course,  be 
consistently  maintained  that  it  does  in  the  following  sentence, 
■'ma."npn  "iirS  n^'SriTiyi  (I  Kings  9:7),  that  is,  in  such  sentences  as 
Baumann  selects  as  the  basis  of  his  conclusions. 

54.  To  this  use  of  TCi^  that  of  HT  or  ^T  offers  no  parallel.  To 
be  sure,  Baumann  remarks:  "  HT  und  ^T  leiten  selbstandige  und 
unselbstandige  Relativsatze  ein.  Von  ihrer  syntaktischen  Stellung 
gilt  das  von  '^'^^_  Gesagte."  ^  This  is  again  adopted  by  Gesenius- 
Kautzsch.     But    this    statement    requires    modification.     HT    (^T), 

1  Cf .  §  39.  note. 

2  Op.  cit.,  p.  47. 


38  Carl  Gaenssle 

being;  a  domonstrative,  is  never  preceded  by  another  demon- 
strative; ff.  Exod.  13:8;  Isa.  25:9;  Ps.  74:2;  78:54;  104:8,  26; 
Prov.  23:22;  Job.  15:17;  19:19.  Baumann  further  remarks  that 
~T  or  ^T  is  sometimes  joined  by  the  linea  makkef  with  the  ante- 
cedent, showing  that  it  is  not  a  relative  in  the  ordinary  sense.  But 
apart  from  the  fact  that  this  is  not  always  the  case  (cf.  Ps.  104:26, 
n^*4"~T  "n'lb),  the  same  argument,  applied  to  "^tpS,  will  lead 
to  the  opposite  conclusion,  since  "IIIJS  is  in  most  cases  united  by 
makkef  with  the  following  clause,  not  with  the  antecedent.  Like  HT  , 
the  Aramaic  "''^  is  also  sometimes  found  united  l\y  makkef  with  what 
follows;  cf.  Ezra  5:4,  7=3  Hw^zn  nDI""'^  ^^TR\  ^^'^^'  "t^^ 
names  of  the  men  that  were  building  this  building." 

55.  In  Aramaic,  the  relative  particle  is  sometimes  preceded  by 
a  demonstrative  with  a  nominal  antecedent;  cf .  Ezra  6:12,  SribST^lL 
Db'JJ^l^n  ^"^  T]"I,  "this  house  of  God  which  is  in  Jerusalem."  But 
this,  of  course,  does  not  mean  that  ^"H  was  felt  to  belong  to  the  ante- 
cedent, but  clearly  shows  that  the  original  demonstrative  had  worn 
away  to  a  mere  medium  of  relation,  a  7iota  relationis;  cf.  also  Dan. 
3:22,  27;  6:25;  Ezra  5:17. 

56.  The  same  applies  to  the  Syriac  ?  which  in  many  cases  has 
clearly  passed  into  the  regimen  of  the  subordinate  clause,  even  to 
the  extent  of  being  preceded  by  a  preposition.^ 

57.  As  for  the  Arabic,  the  remarks  of  Baumann  are,  in  the  main, 
correct.  It  is  well  known  that  ^< jJI  is  a  demonstrative  belonging 
syntactically  to  the  antecedent.  This  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  it 
ordinarily  agrees  with  the  latter  not  only  in  gender  and  number  but 
even  in  case.  It  is  also  true  that  the  antecedent  may  have  a  demon- 
strative. This,  however,  never  interposes  itself  between  |^(X'I  and 
the  antecedent.  In  other  words,  ^JJI  follows  immediately  upon 
the  antecedent.  It  is  not  found,  as  is  so  frequently  the  case  with 
i1Di<,  in  direct  juxtaposition  with  another  demonstrative  accom- 
panjnng  the  antecedent.  To  illustrate,  we  may  compare  the  fol- 
lowing examples  from  the  Arabic  and  the  Hebrew:  I^\  Ijjc  ,^ 
^L*j'  ^ JJ' ,  ''wer  ist  dieser  Stamra,  den  du  meinst?"^  and  ""^ 

1  Cf.  Noldeke,  Syrische  Gr.,  §  349.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume  with  Noldelve  that 
this  is  due  to  Greek  influence. 

*  Reckendorf,  Synlaktische  Verhnllnisae  dea  Arabiachen,  p.  018. 


5^' 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^'^i^  39 

"'ITS  n-TIj  D''ibrir) ,  "what  is  this  dream  which  thou  hast  dreamed?" 
Besides,  Reckendorf  sees  in  Arabic  sentences  of  the  above  type  a 
tendency  on  the  part  of  ^^ jJl  to  sever  its  close  connection  with  the 
antecedent  and  enter  into  the  construction  of  the  relative  clause. 
He  says:  "Nun  vollzog  sich  aber  eine  Verschiebung  in  dem  Ver- 
haltnis  des  Relativpronomens  zum  Relativsatz,  indem  das  Relativ- 
pronomen  in  vielen  Fallen  seine  Freiheit  gegeniiber  dem  Relativsatze 
verlor  und  auch  hinsichtlich  seiner  Kasuskonstruktion  (wenn 
auch  nicht  seiner  Kasus/orw)  in  den  Satzverband  des  Relativsatzes 
einriickte."^  Similarly  Brockelmann:  "Aber  die  Tendenz,  die  in 
alien  semitischen  Sprachen  wirksam  gewesen,  das  Pronomen  enger 
an  den  Nebensatz  anzuschliessen,  hat  vereinzelt  schon  im  Altara- 
bischen  dazu  gefiihrt,  dass  die  Form  a  1 1  a  d  i  erstarrt  und  auch  bei 
pluralischem  Leitwort  verwandt  wird,  wie  lastuma  'ula'ika 
'lladi  'anaitu,  seid  ihr  nicht  die,  die  ich  meinte?"^  Note 
here  the  word  erstarrt,  which  is  seen  clearly  from  the  fact  that  the 
relative  ^  JJi  is  employed  in  the  singular,  although  the  antecedent 
is  in  the  plural.  This  being  true  of  the  Arabic  relative,  notwith- 
standing its  demonstrative  origin  and  its  immediate  proximity  to 
the  nominal  antecedent,  what  must  be  said  of  the  Hebrew  TI2J5< , 
separated  at  it  is  from  the  antecedent  by  an  intervening  demon- 
strative ? 

58.  1  shall  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  those  passages  in 
which  "I12J!S1  follows  a  demonstrative  standing  alone,  i.e.,  not  as  the 
accompaniment  of  a  nominal  antecedent.  These  passages  are  again 
not  treated  by  Baumann  and  others.  Gen.  6:15,  n'"l2J^n  TllJi^  nn 
nni^,  "this  [it  is]  that  thou  shalt  build";  Gen.  44:5,  "T  xbn 
in  .  .  .  .  nnilj";  ''''P^,  "is  this  not  [that]  which  my  lord  drinks 
with?"     Exod.   29:38,    "nT^an-b?   nb?n  "^m  nn,  "and  this  is 

•   :    •  .     :  ....  ^ 

[that]  which  thou  shalt  do  concerning  the  altar";  Deut.  14:12,  nn 
DH/J  ^bDSr  Sb  ^1Ij^5,  "and  this  is  [that]  which  you  shall  not  eat 
of."  What  Baumann's  treatment  of  these  examples  would  be  is 
clear  from  what  he  says  on  II  Sam.  2:4,  ^^2]^  "^^^  13?b3  1252;  ^'^Z^ 
b^551I3Ti<,   "die  Leute   von    Gilead   was  es    [diejenigen],  die   Saul 

»  Op.  cit.,  p.  617. 

2  Vergleichende  Gr.,  II,  565. 


40  Carl  Gaknssle 

begrutx'u."'  That  is  to  siiy,  "^TIJS^  is  ;i  predictito  nomiuativo  pure 
and  simple.  It  is  equivalent  to  n,  not  qui.  If  I  were  to  adopt  the 
suggestion  of  Driver  {Notes  on  Samuel)  that  the  Itpyt  has  somehow 
got  into  an  unnatural  position,  that  would  end  the  matter,  so  far 
as  this  passage  is  concerned.  But  the  fact  that  this  type  of  con- 
struction is  by  no  means  isolated  or  anomalous  obliges  us  to  take 
the  text  as  it  stands.  So  far  from  being  "an  unnaturally  worded 
sentence"  (Driver),  it  will  be  seen  that  it  falls  in  line  with  the  sentences 
that  we  are  now  considering.  The  only  legitimate  rendering  is 
"The  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead  are  [those]  who  have  buried  Saul,"  the 
entire  "^"^i^-clause,  being  the  predicate.  So  also  in  the  foregoing 
sentences.  The  demonstrative  HT  (note  the  accent)  is  virtually  a 
sentence:  "This  is  [that].^^  According  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  it  is 
simpty  the  subject  of  which  the  following  "TmX-clause  forms  the 
predicate.  This  analysis  is  required  not  only  in  the  light  of  what 
has  already  been  said,  but  receives  additional  support  from  the  fact 
that  in  not  a  few  cases  an  actual  demonstrative  used  as  the  predicate 
nominative  is  found  as  the  antecedent  of  '^ipj^  in  sentences  of  this 
kind.  Cf.  Esther  7:5,  ^nb  y^\'2  nilJS;  X^n  nT-'NI ,  ''who  is  he 
(S^n)  whose  heart  has  moved  him  ?";  Ezek.  38: 17,  ^^S!  J^^H  HFIN 
^n'^n'n,  "thou  art  he  of  whom  I  spake";  I  Chron.  21 :  17,  i^^n  ^DX 
-pj^^n  "i^N ,  "I  am  he  that  has  sinned."  If  it  be  maintained 
that  S^n  in  such  cases  is  not  really  a  predicate  nominative,  but 
merely  an  attendant  of  the  subject  for  the  sake  of  greater  emphasis, 
this  is  incorrect,  as  may  be  seen  from  other  passages;  cf.  Ps.  102:28, 
i<^ri  nriXI ,  "Thou  art  he,"  i.e.,  the  same  (in  opposition  to  the 
transitoriness  of  all  things  spoken  of  before);  Isa.  41:4,  J^^H  ''DS , 
"1  am  he";  43:10,  13.^  Similarly  i<^n  ^12,  «^n  HT,  DH  nbs;'.^ 
59.  The  same  construction  is  found  with  n>X;  cf.  Num.  34:29, 
ir;;5  mn*'  n^:i  '^irj^  n^S,  "these  are  [they]  whom  Jahwe  com- 
manded"; Josh.  13:32,  H^TJ  bljD  ItlJN;  nbs ,  "these  are  [they,  sc. 
the  inheritances]  which  Moses  allotted";  "Das  ist's,  was  Moses 
verteilte"  (Steuernagel) ;  Josh.  14:1,   bS'lTT"]  "^n  ^brs  "IllJSi  Hbxi , 

>  Op.  cit.,  p.  22. 

2  Driver,  Hebrew  Tenses,  §  200. 

»  Ibid.,  §  201. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "^TIJJJ^  41 

"this  is  [that]  which  the  IsraeUtes  received  as  an  inheritance";  Zech. 
1 :  10,  riln^  nbir  "llIJS!  nbs  ,  "these  are  [they]  whom  Jahwe  has  sent." 

60.  In  Hke  manner,  ^T2Ji<  follows  X^n;  cf.  Gen.  42:14,  TC5^  S^H 
^n'lia'n  ,  "this  is  [that]  which  I  have  said";i  Lev.  10:3,  IH'n  mi3i<  ^5^- 
mr;* ,  "this  is  [that]  which  Jahwe  said";  I  Kings  18:22,  J^^m  ^htl 
rnrn-nSt  ^n^^pjri  -^C^n  ntbyj,  ''is  this  not  he  whose  highi 
places  Hezekiah  removed?" 

61.  ^taji  also  occurs  after  Ti^l ;  cf.  Num.  8:24,  Q^lbb  ■^•J:^^!  n5<T  , 
rendered  by  Baentsch,  "Das  ist's,  was  mit  Bezug  auf  die  Leviten 
(geschehen  soil)."  The  LXX  favors  the  Massoretic  text:  tovto 
eaTL  TO  irepl  tcop  Aev.  Gen.  49:28,  DH^nS  DHb  ^nV^tDS;  n^^TI , 
"and  this  is  it  that  their  father  spake  unto  them"  (R.V.j. 

b)     SUBSTANTIVE   RELATIVE    CLAUSES 

1.     Substantive  Relative  Clauses  as  Subject 

62.  Entering  now  into  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  substantive  or 
independent  relative  clauses,  I  must  repeat,  in  the  first  place,  that 
Baumann's  conclusions  are  based  on  only  part  of  the  facts.  He 
selects  such  passages  as  seem  to  suit  his  theory,  while  numerous 
others,  inimical  to  it,  are  passed  by  unnoticed.  To  begin  with  the 
clauses  used  as  the  subject,  I  shall  insert  here  a  typical  example  from 
Gesenius-Kautzsch  which  will  illustrate  the  mode  of  treatment: 
Num.  22:6,  ^&5V  nb^Fl  ^W ,  is  dissected  thus:  "der— du  verfluchst 
[ihn]— ist  verflucht,"'  ^tblS;  being  the  subject  of  ^SV .  This  after 
Baumann,  who  cites  Deut.  27:26,  ^"^nTnS  D^p^'j^b  ni23li^  n^^S , 
with  the  remark  that  itlJNI  has  nothing  to  do  syntactically  with  the 
attributive  clause,  i.e.,  it  is  the  subject  of  "I^ISI .  "Cursed  is  he — 
[he]  does  not  fulfil  the  words,"  etc. 

63.  To  show  the  incorrectness  of  this  syntactic  scheme  nothing 
further  is  necessary  than  to  call  attention  to  such  passages  as  preclude 
the  possibility  of  its  apphcation;  cf.  Zech.  14:17,  !J<b  nilJSl  J^^HI 
D^Sri  n^n^  On^b:;?  U^bl  .  .  .  .  nbr.  There  is  more  than  one 
reason  why  this  sentence  cannot  be  analyzed  after  the  Boettcher- 
Baumann-Gesenius-Kautzsch  fashion.  Keeping  the  difficulty 
offered  by  the  waw  consecutive  in  abeyance  for  the  present,  can 

1  Gunkel  and  others  favor  the  insertion  of  "ID'^H  after  X^H  (cf.  Gen.  41:28),  but 
this  is  unnecessary,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  other  passages  quoted  above. 


42  Cakl  (Iaenssle 

the  relative  clause  be  regarded  here  as  in  any  possible  way 
parenthetical,^  so  to  speak ?  Let  us  apply  the  above  scheme.  "And 
it  shall  be,  that  one — [he]  does  not  go  up — upon  thetn  shall  be  no  rain." 
Assuming  for  the  present  that  fllJii  can  be  a  casus  pendens  antici- 
pating Dr'^l^y  ,  the  great  difficulty  of  the  number  of  the  verb  in 
the  relative  clause  remains  unsolved.  How  account  for  the  singular 
nby^  ?  There  would  b(^  a  semblance  of  possibility  for  the  con- 
struction we  are  opposing,  if  instead  of  nb?^  we  should  have  the 
plural  ^br.  We  might  then  construe:  "They  ptOSl]— [«/iey]  do 
not  go  up  [^by*] — upon  them  shall  be  no  rain."  The  fact,  however, 
that  the  verb  in  the  relative  clause  is  in  the  singular  shows  conclu- 
sively that  its  number  is  determined  by  "^tDS; .  Consequently,  the 
"i^S;  belongs  syntactically  to  the  relative  clause.  The  plural  QH^b^' 
in  the  main  clause  is,  of  course,  easily  accounted  for.  The  relative 
clause  is  general  and  indefinite,  involving  a  plural  idea.  The  only 
possible  rendering  of  the  verse  is:  "whoever  does  not  go  up,  upon 
them  shall  be  no  rain."  Another  passage  in  which  it  is  equally 
impossible  to  construe  "IIIJS  with  the  main  clause  is  Isa.  55:1, 
^;b  -C3  ib  "X  "^lljy; .  l(  '^^^  is  to  be  construed  with  the  main 
clause  here,  it  must  be  equivalent  to  the  second  person  plural  of 
the  personal  pronoun!  Further,  if  "ilIJ^^  be  a  plural,  how  account 
for  the  singular  ib  ?  The  ib  becomes  inexplicable  if  detached 
from  ^IIJS;.  They  both  belong  together,  and  the  verse  must  be 
rendered:   "whoever  has  no  money — come." 

64.  The  importance  of  the  ivaw  consecutive  has  already  been 
alluded  to.  To  the  first  passage  quoted  in  the  last  paragraph  we 
may  here  add  a  few  more  typical  instances:  Gen.  44:9,  i^'-p^"",  ''■^^. 
T\-2)  .  .  .  .  inX;  Judg.  1:12,  ib^FinDI  ....  Hr  mNi;  Mic.  3:5,' 
JlTIJ'npl  ....  "in";  ikb  ^ipSi.  The  first  of  these  passages  is  cited 
twice  by  Gesenius-Kautzsch.  In  §112  u,  the  verse  is  translated: 
"derjenige,  bei  dem  der  Becher  gefunden  werden  wird  ....  der 
soil  sterben."  In  §138/  we  find  the  following:  " der— gefunden 
wird  er  [der  Becher]  bei  ihm— muss  sterben."  One  cannot  fail  to 
notice  that  in  this  last  rendering  the  waw  is  completely  ignored,  while 
in  the  former  its  force  is  indicated  by  the  resumptive  der.  Reference, 
however,  is  made  to  §  143  d,  where  attention  is  drawn  to  the  waw 

>  This  expression  is  employed  by  Boettcher. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  1123U5  43 

apodosis  after  a  casus  pendens.  Accordingly,  ^tljy^  is  to  be  regarded 
as  a  casus  pendens.  Now,  there  are,  of  course,  numerous  instances 
in  which  the  waw  follows  upon  a  single  word;  cf.  Jer.  6:19,  ^mini 
Hn"^CSl«^1,  "and  as  for  my  law,  they  have  despised  it";  Gen. 
17:14,  .  .  .  .  nnn^j^  ....  n^T  b"^r, ,  "ein  Unbeschnittener  aber 
.  .  .  .  (falls  ein  solcher  betroffen  wird),  so  soil  er  ausgerottet 
werden,"  etc.;i  Gen.  22:24,  nbn'l  ....  TOjb^S^,  "und  (was) 
sein  Kebsweib  ....  (betrifft),  so  gebar  sie."^  With  reference  to 
this  usage  the  grammar  says  that  the  casus  pendens  is  virtually  a 
sentence  {Satzdquivalent,  112^,  111 /i).  Hence  the  above  mode  of 
translation  ("was  ....  betrifft,  so").  Why  call  a  casus  pendens 
a  "sentence-equivalent?"  Obviously,  to  explain  the  use  of  the 
following  waw.  This  is,  perhaps,  putting  an  unnecessarily  heavy 
burden  upon  the  casus  pendens.  It  was  hardly  felt  to  be  a  Satz- 
dquivalent; but  so  much  is  true  that  this  casus  absolutus  must  be 
sufficiently  definite  and  suggestive  to  arrest  the  attention  momen- 
tarily and  to  warrant,  as  it  were,  a  fresh  start  (at  the  waw)  in  the 
continuation  and  completion  of  the  thought.  Such  a  word  as  this, 
"'ipS ,  as  employed  in  indefinite  relative  clauses,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  cannot  be.  We  can  easily  test  this.  Let  us  come  back  once 
more  to  Gen.  44:9,  r\'2)  ....  i^-0^_  miJS ,  and  isolate  *i^i^_  as 
a  casus  pendens.  According  to  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  the  following 
paraphrastic  rendering  should  be  allowable:  "Was  den  betrifft — 
der  Becher  wird  bei  ihm  gefunden  werden — -so  soil  er  sterben." 
We  at  once  feel  that  this  will  not  work,  for  the  reason  that  was  den 
betrifft  lacks  content  and  distinctness.  But  the  matter  assumes  an 
entirely  different  complexion  as  soon  as  we  say,  "was  den  betrifft, 
bei  dem  der  Becher  gefunden  werden  wird,  so  soil  er  sterben."  In 
other  words,  the  explanation  and  justification  of  the  waw  in  sentences 
of  this  kind  is  to  be  sought  in  the  content  of  the  entire  relative  clause, 
not  in  the  particle  as  a  supposed  casus  pendens.  An  ocular  repre- 
sentation of  the  syntax  must  employ  only  one — and  not  two  ("With 
whomsoever  the  cup  be  found — he  shall  die";  "Whoever  shall 
smite — unto  him  will  I  give,"  etc.).  The  waw  marks  the  division, 
and  may  sometimes  be  rendered  by  "then."  This  applies  especially 
to  indefinite  relative  clauses,  which  are  virtually  conditional.     Thus 

>  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  §  112  mm.  "  §  111  h. 


44  (\\UL  Oaknssle 

Mie.  3:5  might  he  freely  remlered:  "If  anyone  does  not  put  into 
their  mouth,  then  they  consecrate  war  against  him."  Whatever 
precedes  the  ivaw  constitutes  a  logical  and  grammati(;al  unit. 

65.  Instead  of  the  icaw,  a  special  resumptive  j^ronoun  is  quite 
frequently  employed  to  introduce  the  main  clause.  The  principle 
involved  is  the  same  as  with  the  ivaiv,  only  that  the  use  of  the  pronoun 
gives  greater  emphasis  to  the  principal  sentence;  cf.  Exod.  12:16, 
orb  nipr  ^^in  '^Srb^b  brx:.  -itpy;  -« .  Here  again  the  demon- 
strative theory  presupposes  that  "lllJ^t  is  a  casus  pendens,  which, 
being  resumed  by  S^H  ,  is  really  the  subject  of  HiT^I] .  According 
to  the  theory  we  should  have  to  analyze  as  follows:  "Only  that 
(1'upS  has  no  connection  with  bS^^) — [it]  shall  be  eaten  by  every 
one — that  shall  be  prepared."  These  disjecta  membra  require  no 
further  comment.  The  simple  fact  is  that  I^S  is  the  subject  of 
b^ii"^ ,  and  the  entire  "iTIJ^i- clause,  emphatically  resumed  by  i^'^Tl , 
is  the  subject  of  nir?" .  "Only  what  is  eaten  by  every  one,  that 
shall  be  prepared."  Cf.  in  English,  "Who  noble  ends  by  noble 
means  obtains,  that  man  is  great  indeed"  (Pope,  Essay  on  Man). 
A  similar  passage  is  Gen.  15:4,  ^jtcn^"]  X^H  ?^7537J  55^;^  nilji^  Di<'^3  , 
"but  one  that  shall  come  forth  out  of  thy  bowels,  he  shall  be  thine 
heir."  Not:  "But  that  one — [he]  shall  come  forth,  etc. — he  shall 
be  thine  heir."     Note  also  the  accent. 

2.     Substantive  Relative  Clauses  as  Object 

66.  We  shall  now  pass  on  to  consider  the  relative  substantive 
clause  used  as  the  object.  It  is  in  the  objective  relative  clauses  that 
Baumann  would  find  one  of  the  main  stays  for  his  theory  of  the 
s^mtax  of  our  particle.  As  a  typical  passage,  he  singles  out  Gen. 
49:1,  as  already  remarked.  The  presence  of  the  accusative  sign 
nx  before  nip5<  (-lllJ^Jt  ni<  DDb  HTSN)  is  to  him  an  unassailable 
proof  that  "^TlJi^  itself  must  be  in  the  accusative,  and  that  it  must 
belong  to  the  Hauptsatzgefiige  as  the  object  of  •TT'iiX .  Before 
offering  criticism,  it  may  be  well  to  transcribe  a  few  more  of  Bau- 
mann's  passages,  all  of  which  are  to  be  analyzed  in  the  same  way  as 
Gen.  49:1.  Deut.  5:11,  "nx  «1B^"^m  njS;  r^rr  Tl^T  sb  ^3 
U^llSb    i'JIIJ ,    "denn  Jahwe  lasst  den  nicht  ungestraft,  der  seinen 


The  Hebrew  Particle  lllJi^  45 

namen  freventlich  ausspricht";  Deut.  21:16,  "r\5<  ib^M^n  DI'S 
"^^  »^."!»7^"^'?^  ^]^  ^^i^>  "^^  Tage,  wo  er  seinen  Sohnen  das  uber- 
giebt,  waserbesitzt";  Lev.  13:57,  3^33^  'i^'^^i^  n5<  ^BS^'^n  iiJXn , 
"Mit  Feuer  soil  man  es  vertilgen,  das,  woran  sich  der  Aussatz 
befindet."  Baumann's  rendering  in  these  cases  is  freer,  so  that  the 
syntactic  relation  of  ^t23lJ5  is  not  indicated  in  the  German  translation. 
However,  these  passages  are  in  Baumann's  opinion  so  manifesth'  in 
favor  of  his  theory  that  he  says,  "Von  diesen  Fallen  hat  man  aus- 
zugehen  und  nach  ihnen  diejenigen  zu  beurteilen,  wo  die  Sprache 
die  syntaktische  Stellung  des  IISJ^  nicht  zum  Ausdruck  bringt."' 

67.  Baumann  is  determined  at  all  costs  to  keep  the  "1123  !J5  from 
slipping  away  from  the  main  clause,  and  consequently  he  seizes 
upon  the  preceding  rii<  to  prove  that  it  is  the  object  of  the  principal 
verb  and  wholly  disconnected  with  the  subordinate  clause.  But 
this  mode  of  reasoning  will  not  hold  water.  It  is  a  mere  begging 
of  the  question.  It  does  not  prove  that  lllJj^  must  be  a  demon- 
strative in  the  accusative  case,  but  merely  shows  that,  the  demon- 
strative theory  assumed,  the  accusative  sign  dovetails  in  with  this 
theory.  A  stringent  proof  would  have  to  show  that  the  prefixed 
ns^  is  inexplicable  on  any  other  than  the  demonstrative  conception 
of  "I'ilJS .  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  accusative  sign  admits 
of  a  very  easy  explanation  without  adopting  the  proposed  analysis. 
Its  function  is  not  to  subordinate  the  "itSS ,  but  the  entire  clause 
introduced  by  TC5^ .  Nor  need  this  surprise  us.  Such  a  construc- 
tion is  quite  in  harmony  with  Hebrew  usage  in  general,  which  often 
treats  an  entire  clause,  grammatically,  as  a  single  word.  One  need 
only  recall  the  very  common  construction  of  an  entire  sentence 
depending  (as  a  single  idea)  on  a  noun  in  the  construct,  to  which  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  recur  later  on.  Even  granting,  therefore,  that 
"11235^  were  an  original  demonstrative,  the  rii<  would  not  prove  that 
it  belonged  to  the  principal  sentence;  and,  of  course,  the  argument 
fails  completely  in  view  of  the  vague  and  indeterminate  character  of 
our  particle.  Moreover,  in  all  the  passages  cited  by  Baumann,  one 
cannot  fail  to  notice  that  the  accentuation  stands  directly  opposed 
to  his  syntax,  the  '^'J^^_  being  in  every  instance  joined  with  the 
following  statement  by  means  of  the  makkej.     In  the  opinion  of  the 

I  Op.  cit.,  p.  21. 


46  Carl  Gaenssle 

pimctuiitors,  the  accusativo  sign  r&5  was,  therefore,  prefixed  not  to 
^'I'S  but  to  the  entire  succeeding  clause.  And  so  it  is  with  scores 
of  other  passages  which  I  have  examined.  Again,  there  are  passages 
in  which  Baumann's  syntactic  scheme  will  not  fit  into  the  text  so 
snugly  as  it  apparently  does  in  the  passages  selected  by  him  for 
illustration.  In  perfectly  regular  constructions,  such  as  we  find  in 
Gen.  49:1  and  numerous  other  places,  it  might  be  contended  that, 
keeping  other  objections  in  abeyance,  the  "iTTSlTyi  constitutes  the 
object  of  the  principal  verb.  But  where  there  is  no  such  regularity 
of  construction,  the  scheme  will  not  fit.  In  Num.  32:31  we  read 
the  following:  rVJi72  "jS  ?jnn3^-bst  nvr  ^n^  ntdit  nj<.  Here 
the  resumptive  "3  is  troublesome  for  the  Baumann  analysis.  If 
this  "3  were  absent,  it  might  be  contended  that  "tllJiil  nSl  is  the 
object  of  ri'jp^D  ("  that — Jahwe  has  commanded  thy  servants — we 
shall  do") ;  but  the  insertion  of  "3  between  the  two  members  of  the 
sentence  makes  this  analysis  impossible.  What  does  this  "3 
resume?  Not,  of  course,  ^llJi^  rii<  alone,  which  as  a  substantive  idea 
(according  to  the  theory)  could  not  tolerate  an  adverbial  resumptive. 
The  "3  gathers  up  and  resumes  the  logical  content  of  the  entire 
preceding  clause,  which  contains  an  abstract  verbal  idea.^  The  force 
of  the  objection  urged  here  will  become  more  apparent  if  we  contrast 
with  the  verse  just  quoted  a  similar  one  containing  an  emphatic 
resumptive  pointing  back  to  a  nominal  idea:     Judg.  11:24,  Sbij 

^yn  inis  ^"rrbx  i2jtj3  ?|ti3"iv  nii3«  ns;,  "what  thy  god 

Chemosh  giveth  thee  to  possess,  that  wilt  thou  not  possess?"  Cf. 
also  Num.  23:12. 

68.  Even  this  latter  type  of  sentence  is  not  treated  by  Baumann. 
What  has  been  said  above  with  reference  to  the  emphatic  resumptive 
in  connection  with  relative  clauses  used  as  subject  will  also  apply 
here.  Judg.  11:24  is  not  to  be  analyzed  thus:  "That — Chemosh, 
thy  god  will  give  thee  to  possess  [it] — that  wilt  thou  not  possess?" 
The  ''1^^|1  ns  is  not  a  casus  pendens. 

69.  We  shall  now  insert  a  few  of  the  numberless  instances  of  the 
objective  relative  clause  without  the  accusative  sign.  Gen.  41:28, 
n'lr^E-nS  -X":n  rrj:y  O^nbX  niZJX,  "What  God  is  about  to  do 
he  has  shown  Pharaoh";   not:    "That — God  is  about  to  do  [it] — he 

'  R.V.  As  ....  so,  and  Kautzsch  wie  ....   so. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ilI3i<  47 

has  shown  Pharaoh,"  Tl235<  being  the  object  of  Ti'JiV  ,  not  of  tl^'^n  ; 
Exod.  4:12,  ^ann  ^llJi^  ^'^n^^in') ,  "I  win  teach  thee  what  \hou 
Shalt  speak";  Exod.  6:1,  TO^sb  npy&|!  n^S  n^i^ri  nny ,  "Now 
shalt  thou  see  what  I  will  do  unto  Pharaoh";  I  Sam.  10:7,  TVLV 
?;T  5^:27JF1  -itSS  r(o,  "Do  for  thyself  what  thy  hand  shall  find," 
i.e.,  do  as  occasion  shall  serve  thee  (R.V.);  II  Sam.  18:4, 
riW^  D^'r?^  ?^'"!"^'^^ .  "What  is  good  in  your  eyes  I  shall  do" 
(think  of  making  "''05^  the  object  of  riiryi^  in  spite  of  Makkef  and 
accentuation!);  Isa.  33:13,  ^r\^'X^  ni^JJ^  D-jim  ^TQ^ ,  "Hear,  ye 
that  are  afar  off,  what  I  have  done";  Isa.  37:11,  ^WV  nm  r\y'2^ 
1^12J5<  "^rf r"^  )  "thou  hast  heard  what  the  kings  of  Assyria  have 
done";  Isa.  44:7,  Vcb  ^T^  nDSJinri  ^ir^l ,  "and  what  shall  come 
let  them  announce."  In  all  of  these  cases — and  they  might  be 
greatly  multiplied — the  accentuation  is  again  directly  opposed  to  the 
syntactic  scheme  defended  by  Baumann. 

3.  Substantive  Relative  Clauses  Depending  on  a  Preposition 
70.  It  is  a  well-known  phenomenon  in  Hebrew  that  a  preposition 
may  govern  an  entire  clause  just  as  well  as  a  single  word.  When, 
therefore,  a  relative  clause  introduced  by  1123X  depends  on  a  preposi- 
tion, the  latter  subordinates  the  clause,  not  merely  the  particle,  to 
which  the  former  is  supposed  to  stand  in  an  appositional  relation. 
This  analysis  is  required  by  the  vague  non-demonstrative  character 
of  ^^^5 .  Such  sentences  as  in^^'by  ^IZJ^b  HTJi^^l  are  not  to  be 
analyzed,  "and  he  said  to  him  [I^N] — [he]  was  over  his  house";  but 
rather,  "And  he  said  to  [him]  who-was-over-his-house,"  the  entire 
clause  being  conceived  as  a  single  idea,  while  the  relative  is  hardly 
more  than  a  medium  of  relation.  Constructions  of  this  kind  are 
very  common;  cf.  the  following  passages:  Gen.  27:8,  "'bpS  TZ"^ 
T^nX  n^Ii'J  ^3S  ^^^b,  "Obey  my  voice  in  what  I  am  about  to 
command  thee";  Gen.  47:6,  "If  there  are  able  men  among  them 
[^b-nTI35<-b?  HDp"^  ^lb  DFl''JTr'l],  set  them  as  rulers  of  the  cattle  over 
my  property  " ;  Gen.  47 :  24,  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  at  the  harvest 
that  you  shall  give  a  fifth  unto  Pharaoh  and  four  parts  shall  be  your 
own,  for  seed  of  the  field  ....  [DD^Finn  ^'^^b'l]  and  for  your 


48  Caul  (Iaensslk 

househokls"  (not  "for  those — [thi'ij]  :iro  in  your  houses");  Exod. 
10:16,  "This  is  the  thing  which  Jahwe  has  commanded,  Gather 
ye  ....  [ibr^SIIl  "^'^^^  '^^^],  every  man  for  [those]  who  are 
in  his  tent";  Exod.  29:27,  "Thou  shalt  sanctify  the  breast  of  the 
wave-offering  ....  of  the  ram  of  consecration  ['pH^P  "^"'^^'rl 
of  what  belongs  to  Aaron";  Lev.  27:24,  "In  the  year  of  jubilee  the 
field  shall  return  [in^^■I  ^n;j^  "'"^^^l  to  him  from  whom  he  bought 
it"  (lit.  "to  from-whom-he-bought-it").  Here  the  "IIISS  is  nothing 
more  than  a  connecting  link.  There  are  numerous  other  passages 
of  the  same  kind  which  it  is  needless  to  quote.  I  shall  merely  indicate 
where  they  may  be  found:  Lev.  5:24;  14:30;  Num.  5:7;  6:11; 
20:24;  Josh.  10:11;  17:16;  Judg.  21:5;  I  Sam.  30:14;  II  Sam. 
18:8;  II  Kings  10:22;  Isa.  2:8;  29:12;  31:0;  43:4;  49:9;  56:4; 
65:12;  Koh.  3:9. 

71.  The  weak  non-demonstrative  character  of  ■''C&5  in  the  above 
sentences  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  it  is  sometimes  dispensed  with 
entirely,  the  clause  depending  immediately  on  the  preposition;  cf. 
Isa.  65:1,  ^bif:^  Sibb  ^ri'^^_"I3,  "I  was  consulted  by  those  who 
did  not  ask."  (J^ibb  instead  of  i<b  "^^xb);  Jer.  2:8,  ""^-^^ 
^Sb"  ^b'^yi^'kb ,  "After  what  does  not  profit  they  walked"; 
Jer.  2:11,  "My  people  have  changed  their  glory  [b^^V  iJ^ibS]  for 
what  does  not  profit." 

4.     Relative  Clauses  in  Construct  State 

72.  The  principle  that  an  entire  clause  was  conceived  by  the 
Hebrew  Sprachbewusstsein  as  a  single  idea  and  construed  as  such  is 
further  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  a  relative  clause  very  frequently 
appears  as  depending  on  a  construct.  In  the  syntactic  treatment  of 
this  type  of  sentence,  I  must  again  express  my  dissent  with  the  view 
of  Baumann,  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  and  Philippi.  What  this  view  is 
may  be  best  seen  by  inserting  a  few  examples  with  Baumann's 
rendering.  Num.  9:18,  '{D^^n-by  -D^n  -,iD12J^  nilJiSt  ^'2^'^^ , 
"die  ganze  Zeit  des:  es  lagerte  u.s.w.";  I  Kings  21:19,  "ilIJSl  Oip'-Ii 
nia:  W^-n^  Q^^l^^n  ^ppb,  "AmOrtedes:  es  leckten  die  Hunde 
Naboths  Blut."'  Similarly  Philippi,  who  renders  ~ci^  "^'^^  ^V"^ 
DuJ  "'^C^5  (Gen.  40:3),  "der  Ort  des — dass  daselbst  Joseph  ge- 
fangen  ist,  der  Ort  des  daselbst  Gefangenseins  Josephs. "^     So  far 

I  Op.  cit.,  p.  40.  =  Status  Constr.,  p.  79. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "I'iJX  49 

as  the  sense  is  concerned,  these  renderings  are  sufficiently  accurate. 
Phihppi's  "Der  Ort  des  daselbst  Gefangenseins  Josephs,"  which 
gathers  up  the  relative  clause  into  a  single  substantive  in  the  geni- 
tive, shows  a  true  insight  into  the  nature  of  the  Hebrew  construction. 
Yet  it  will  be  noticed  that  both  Philippi's  and  Baumann's  rendering, 
and  especially  the  latter's,  seek  to  preserve  intact  and  unimpaired 
the  demonstrative  character  of  itSJ!; .  In  other  words,  Tl2JiJ<  is  a 
true  demonstrative  in  the  genitive  after  the  construct  ^"2^  or  bip*2  , 
while  the  following  clause  is  in  apposition  with  it.  In  the  hght  of 
our  whole  previous  discussion,  this  syntax  cannot  be  upheld.  As  in 
numerous  other  cases,  it  assigns  to  our  particle  a  specific  demon- 
strative meaning  such  as  it  does  not  express.  Just  what  was  implied 
in  the  "^"kliS  in  such  connections,  when  the  language  was  still  living, 
it  is  hazardous  for  us  to  decide.  There  is  one  thing,  however,  that 
is  worthy  of  note.  This  construction  occurs  principally  after  designa- 
tions of  -place  and  time.  May  we,  therefore,  not  also  here  discern  a 
trace  of  the  adverbial  character  of  nilJS  ?  It  might  perhaps  be 
objected  that  this  supposition,  while  suitable  enough  after  expres- 
sions of  place,  fails  when  applied  to  those  of  time.  However,  the 
idea  of  time  as  well  as  place  is  often  conceived  locally,  spatially.  Do 
we  not  speak  of  a  ^^ space  of  time"  in  English,  or  of  a  "Zeitrai//n" 
in  German?  The  latter  tongue  even  goes  so  far  as  to  use  the  local 
adverb  wo,  indifferently  of  place  or  time,  e.g.,  "die  Zeit,  wo";  "am 
Tage,  wo."  So  also  the  French.  I  think,  therefore,  that  we  may 
have  in  these  Hebrew  constructions  the  lingering  traces  of  the 
adverbial  use  of  ^IIJSl .  While  this  may  be  the  case,  the  other  sup- 
position that  TOS!  is  simply  a  faded  medium  of  relation  satisfies 
all  the  requirements.  One  cannot  be  dogmatic  on  this  point.  For 
additional  examples  cf.  the  grammars,  e.g.,  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  25. 

73.  Very  frequently  the  IlIJS;  is  omitted;  cf.  I  Sam.  25:15, 
Dri&<  ^jip*rinn  ^'T'bj,  rendered  bj^  Baumann,  "Die  ganze  Zeit 
(des:)  wir  zogen  mit  ihnen  herum."  The  English  equivalent  would 
be,  "All  the  days  of  our  going  about  with  them."  Passages  of  this 
type  are  also  very  common;  cf.  Ps.  56:10,  ^5^p^  DVZl ,  "on  the  day 
that  I  called";  Isa.  29:1,  TQ  "jH  n^"^p ,  "the  city  where  David 
encamped";  Job.  18:21,  ^T  )^  '^'^'p'r  ^  "the  place  of  one  that 
knows  not  [God]."     Further  citation  is  unnecessary  for  our  purpose. 


50  Carl  Gaenssle 

c)  1"jjs<  a  vague  medium  of  kelation 
74.  In  addition  to  what  has  already  been  said  against  the  demon- 
strative tlieory  of  "ilIJSl ,  it  may  further  be  remarked  that  there  are 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  wliere  112JS  is  so  impalpably  vague 
and  elusive  as  to  be  untranslatable  except  by  periphrasis.  These 
passages  have  not  received  due  consideration  by  the  grammars  in 
determining  the  character  of  our  particle.  Cf .  the  following  passages : 
Judg.  8:15,  'ni<  DF13in  l^K  y37jb?1  nnT  nsn  ^•2^'^'],  "and 
he  said,  Behold  Zebah  and  Zalmunna,  concerning  whom  you 
taunted  me";  Vulg. :  super  quibus;  LXX:  ej^ols  ;  Kautzsch:  "wegen 
dcrcr  ihr  mich  gehohnt  habt."  A  mere  glance  at  this  sentence  is 
sufficient  to  show  the  vague  indeterminateness  of  TllJNi .  It  will 
tolerate  neither  a  demonstrative,  relative,  nor  conjunctional  treat- 
ment. It  is  simply  a  connective  medium,  indicating  in  itself  no 
logical  or  grammatical  relationship  between  the  two  clauses.  To 
establish  this  in  accordance  with  the  demands  of  English  syntax, 
we  must  have  recourse  to  periphrasis  and  employ  the  more  definite 
phrases  "concerning  whom,"  "with  reference  to  whom,"  or  some- 
thing similar.  Zech.  11:13,  "Cast  away  the  precious  wage  P^N* 
^"^/r^'r  T^"1P^]  ^i  which  I  had  been  valued  by  them."  Our  rendering 
"at  which"  is,  of  course,  determined  solely  by  the  free  rendering 
of  '^ri"'pV  The  particle  simply  links  the  two  statements  "goodly 
price"  or  "precious  wage"  and  "I  had  been  valued,"  etc.,  together, 
leaving  the  logical  relation  to  be  determined  by  the  reader.  Num. 
10:32  also  belongs  here:  r^12y  HIH^  3^.'  ^^^  ^^"v'  nil^H . 
Here  we  must  render  our  particle  "wherewith,"  by  which  it  is  not 
meant  that  it  conveyed  any  such  definite  meaning  to  the  Hebrew. 
I  Sam.  2:32,  bs;"iir";  ns;  n^tp^  ^-ICS-bDn,  "in  all  of  that  wherewith 
[as  to  which]  he  shall  show  kindness  to  Israel";  II  Kings  19:6,  "Be 
not  afraid  of  the  words  which  you  have  heard  [^"^y]  ^213  "^liDi^ 
'nJ5  ^^ISX'Tjb'J]  wherewith  the  servants  of  the  king  of  Assyria 
have  blasphemed  me."  Here  again  I'CX  is  neither  a  pronoun  nor 
a  conjunction  in  the  real  sense  of  the  term.  Another  instructive 
passage  is  Josh.  5:4,  y'^pirT^  b/J'^lI^S;  ^^IL'^H  HTl .  This  is  usually 
rendered,  "This  is  the  reason  why."  But  "^J,"^  does  not  mean 
"reason,"  nor  IIZJ^;  "why."  Why  should  we  not  have  H'-b  fol- 
lowing 131 ,  if  the  latter  really  means  reason  ?     H'-b  is  used  in 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "TOX  51 

indirect  questions  (cf.  Dan,  10:20).  "iZl"^  here  simply  means 
matter,  state,  condition,  Bewandtnis.  The  sentence  is  to  be  trans- 
lated somewhat  as  follows:  ''This  is  the  matter  with  reference  to 
Joshua's  circumcising";  or,  more  freely,  "Such  are  the  facts  con- 
cerning Joshua's  circumcising,"  "So  verhalt  es  sich  damit,  dass 
Josua  beschnitt."  We  find  a  parallel  passage  in  I  Kings  11:27, 
ibaa  T  D^^n-nidi^  "^n^n  m,  "Such  are  the  facts  concern- 
ing his  rebellion  against  the  king,"  " Folgendermassen  ging  es  dabei 
zu,  als  er  sich  gegen  den  Konig  emporte"  (Kittel,  Handkommentar) ; 
Burney  {Notes  on  Kings):   "and  this  is  the  reason  why." 

75.  Sometimes  the  particle  "''C^^l  unites  two  propositions,  com- 
plete and  independent  in  themselves,  in  such  a  way  that  the  verb 
following  '^^^|1  governs  its  own  object  clause.  In  these  cases  also 
the  vague  connective  character  of  "i^S  is  evident.  Cf.  Num.  11 :  16, 
"  Gather  seventy  men  from  the  elders  of  Israel  [D»l"^3  Tl^T  "iipi<^ 
Qi?r!  "SpT]  concerning  whom  you  know  that  they  are  elders  of  the 
people";  Deut.  9:2,  "Thou  shalt  go  in  and  dispossess  [vs.  1]  .  .  .  . 
the  sons  of  Anakim  [^wSb  2^:n^  ^"p  ny'^TIJ  HnSI  ri>"7^^  nn«  ni2JS 
pDy  ■'jS],  whom  thou  knowest  and  concerning  whom  thou  hast 
heard,  who  shall  stand,"  etc.;  Deut.  20:20,  "'S  ^^fn'^^^P^  7?  pi 
X^n  bpi<'J2  Y2?"^ib  ,  "only  the  trees  of  which  thou  knowest  that 
they  are  not  trees  for  food";  I  Sam.  25:11,  "And  shall  I  take  my 
slaughter  that  I  have  slaughtered  for  my  shearers  and  give  it  unto 
men  [mri  TlTZ  "S  "n3?T  5<b  n^S]  concerning  whom  I  do  not 
know  whence  they  come?" 

76.  The  following  examples  exhibit  the  same  general  character 
as  the  preceding:  Exod.  6:8,  '^m  ""^XH"^^  °?^?^  T^^n") 
nrii^  rrib  '^^Tii^  "inSirD,  "I  shall  bring  you  into  the  land  con- 
cerning which  I  sware  to  give  it  [sc.  to  your  fathers]";  Ezek.  20:42, 

nrninxb  nm  nnb  ■'i^ns!  ^nsirs  ti2J5<  'p.^0'   "*^^  ^^^^ 

concerning  which  I  sware  to  give  it  unto  your  fathers";  cf.  also 
Josh.  21:43;  Ezek.  38:17;  Job  30:1;  Dan.  9:2.  Konig  thinks 
that  sentences  of  this  kind  represent  the  syntactic  phenomenon  of 
Satzverflechtung  in  which  the  "ITIJS;  appears  "als  das  gemeinsame 
Objekt  zweier  Satze."  ^  That  is  to  say  (to  use  Exod.  6:8  for  illustra- 
tion), the  TC^Il  is  supposed  to  be  at  once  the  object  of  "^riJ^TTS  and 

"  Syntax,  414  kl. 


52  Carl  Gaenssle 

riri5 .  I  doubt  very  much  wliether  this  view  is  correct.  In  view 
of  the  unquestionable  vagueness  of  "'"J^Sl  in  many  other  cases,  it 
seems  to  me  decidedly  preferal)lc  to  regard  it  also  in  the  foregoing 
constructions  as  a  medium  of  relation  pure  ami  simple.  And  here 
we  may  conveniently  refer  to  three  other  passages  similarly  treated 
by  Konig:  I  Sam.  3:11,  "I  am  about  to  do  a  thing  in  Israel,"  '^'1IJ&5 
V:TJ<  ^rpS  nr b;:in  i5piD-b|l,  translated  by  Konig  as  follows: 
Cuius  aitditoris  cuiusque  aures  ambae  tinnient^  ("both  ears  of  every 
hearer  of  which  shall  tingle").  But  this  is  more  in  harmony  with  the 
involved  character  of  Latin  syntax  than  with  the  Hebrew.  Wj'nkoop 
{Syntax,  41,  3),  to  my  mind,  comes  much  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  idiom 
in  rendering  "at  which,  if  any  one  heareth  it,  both  his  ears  shall 
tingle."  Giesebrecht's  remark  is  to  the  point.  He  says  that  in 
this  connection  "^IIJSI  is  a  "Partikel  der  Relation  im  Allgemeinen, 
etwa  s.v.a.  ivohei"  {Handkonimentar).  Reproduced  in  English, 
■''kZJX  is  equivalent  to  some  such  expression  as  "with  reference  to 
which  the  following  applies,"  "I  shall  do  a  thing  "  (with  reference  to 
which,  etc.).  The  same  expression  recurs  in  II  Kings  21:12  and 
Jer.  19:3. 

77.  Sometimes,  according  to  our  grammatical  categories,  IIIJS 
does  the  service  of  a  partitive  genitive;  cf.  Exod.  1:15,  "And  the 
king  of  Egypt  said  unto  the  Hebrew  midwives,  nnsin  Dup  '^^^^ 
ny^E  '^"j'ljSn  D12JT  JT'S'llJ ,  Vulg. :  Quarumunavocahatur,eic.\YiXO(\. 
18:3,  "[Jethro  took]  her  two  sons,"  Da:"i3  inSH  D'J?  "1123^5,  Vulg.: 
Quorum  units  vocahatur;  Judg.  20:31,  "In  the  highways,  riHi^  ''"JiS 
bSl"n''2  nVy  ,  Vulg. :  quarum  unaferebatur  in  Bethel.  In  these  cases, 
1125s  is  manifestly  nothing  more  than  a  connective  with  no  syntactic 
relation  at  all. 

78.  I  have  found  one  passage  in  which  miS  is  equivalent  to  an 
accusative  of  result:  Lev.  6:3,  IIJS;"  b^i^B  IT^S;  -TlJ^ri-nS;  D^-ini 
"ST^ri'by  nb^'riTli^ ,  "And  he  shall  take  up  the  ashes  whereto 
the  fire  shall  consume  the  burnt-offering  on  the  altar."  This  passage, 
along  with  several  others,  is  quoted  by  Baumann  in  a  paragraph 
introduced  by  the  following  words:  "Im  Hebraischen  nehmen 
verschiedene  Gruppen  von  Verben  ein  direktes  Objekt  zu  sich, 
wo  wir  das  Verhaltnis  durch  eine  Praposition  vermitteln."     Having 

i  Syntax,  412  1. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "i12Ji<  53 

then  cited  the  illustrative  examples,  he  concludes  the  paragraph  with 
this  sentence:  ''In  alien  diesen  Beispielen  ist  das  in  der  Gestalt 
eines  Pronominalakkusativs  zu  erwartende  'Aid  ausgelassen."i 
That  is  to  say,  the  verb  bDX  is  supposed  to  take  two  accusatives, 
one  representing  the  direct  object  (in  our  verse  Tl^^lT^)  and  another 
denoting  the  result.  In  this  way  Baumann  seeks  to  rescue  "^"^IJi^  for 
his  hypothesis.  He  conceives  of  the  syntax  in  this  way:  "He  shall 
take  up  the  ashes  that — [into  it]  [suppressed  retrospective]  the  fire 
shall  consume  the  burnt-offering."  But  the  verb  b^Si  is  never 
employed  with  two  accusatives,  but  with  one  only.  Consequently, 
the  ^ipx  can  be  nothing  else  than  a  vague  connective,  equivalent 
to  an  accusative  of  result,  according  to  our  mode  of  thought.  A 
suppression  of  the  'Aid  is  out  of  the  question. 

79.  There  is,  perhaps,  one  example  where  ^IZJS;  may  be  said  to 
be  employed  as  an  ablative  of  attendant  circumstance;  cf.  Exod. 
6:5,  nnj^  D^l=l?"r  D":'^^"r  ^"^^  ^^y^".  '5=^  f^P^?"^^  T^^'t^, 
"I  have  heard  the  groaning  of  the  Israelites  under  which  the  Egyp- 
tians hold  them  in  bondage  [lit.  make  them  serve]."  There  is,  of 
course,  room  for  difference  of  opinion  here.  "Whom  the  Egyptians 
keep  in  bondage"  is  the  translation  adopted  by  R.V.,  Baentsch,  and 
others.  But  the  verse  is  more  vividly  descriptive  of  the  situation 
if  "I12P&5  be  made  to  refer  as  a  connective  to  flpSD  instead  of  bsT^:"' , 
thus  denoting  the  circumstances  under  which  the  oppression  goes 
on.  So  Vulg. :  gemitum  ....  quo  Aegypti  oppresserunt  eos.  LXX 
also  refers  "I'CS  to  groaning,  but  the  translation  is  too  slavishly 
literal:     arevaynov  ....  ov  oi  Axyb-KTioi  KaTabovKovvTai  avTohs- 

80.  It  may  be  that  "^lliij;  expresses  means  (always  to  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  various  forces  are  not  inherent  in  the  particle  itself) ; 
cf.  Isa.  50:1,  "Where  is  your  mother's  bill  of  divorcement  ["I'lZJ^i 
ri''ri~b'aJ]  by  which  I  put  her  away?";  Judg.  9:38,  "Where  is  now 
thy  mouth  [H/JJ^Fl  ^IIJS;]  with  which  you  spoke  ?"  But  cf.  explicative 
clauses  in  Part  II.  Josh.  8:26,  "iTS^  uDD  nilJS  iT ,  "his  hand 
wherewith  he  stretched  out  the  javelin";  but,  perhaps  better, 
"which  he  stretched  out  with  the  javelin";   cf.  Exod.  8:1. 

81.  It  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  broad  and  indeterminate 
nature   of   "ltl3si   that  it  often  dispenses  with  specifying  adjuncts 

>  Op.  cit..  p.  32. 


54  Caul  (Jaenssle 

ordinarily  employ t\l.  This  is  especially  the  ease  when  it  is  used  with 
I'^yi .  Ordinarily,  the  person  or  thing  spoken  of  is  expressed  by 
•  means  of  prepositions,  such  as  b^|;  or  b  .  In  relative  clauses,  however, 
they  are  usually  omitted;  of.  Gen.  43:27,  "Is  your  father  well,  the 
old  man  [□n■!r^i  ^"^X]  of  whom  you  speak?";  Gen.  43:29,  "Is 
this  your  little  brother  ["bx  Orn'^Sl  TCSS]  of  whom  you  spoke  to 
me?";  Exod.  22:8,  " Concerning  anything  that  is  lost  [TJS^  miJS] 
of  which  one  says  [this  is  it]";  Num.  14:31,  "And  your  little  ones 
[D^|■}"^^^  "I'^Sl]  of  whom  you  say  [they  shall  be  a  prey]";  Num. 
21:16,  "This  is  the  well  [niflTjb  HIH^  Tp^^  ni25s]  concerning  which 
Jahwe  spake  to  Moses";  I  Sam.  9:9,  ?|^bs  T"^'r^  ^^^  llJ^i^n  , 
"the  man  concerning  whom  I  spake  to  thee."  Examples  of  this 
kind  are  very  numerous.     So  also  with  "I3T  and  ^Hll . 

82.  The  indefinite  character  of  IIJJNI  is  further  observable  in 
its  various  uses  after  time-determinations.  It  may  denote,  accord- 
ing as  the  context  requires,  (a)  the  time  at  which  (point  of  time), 
(6)  the  time  during  which  (duration  of  time) ,  and  (c)  the  time  within 
which  an  action  takes  place  or  a  condition  exists. 

Examples  of  (a):  Exod.  13:3,  "Remember  this  day  pllJX 
Dn^<^■']  when  ye  went  forth";  Num.  15:23,  "From  the  day  p^N; 
Tr\rr  nj:;]  when  Jahwe  commanded";  Deut.  4:10;  4:32;  9:7; 
27:2;  Judg.  4:14;  II  Sam.  19:20;  19:25;  I  Kings  22:25;  Jer. 
7:25;  Ps.  78:42;  Koh.  8:9;  Esther  5:13;  9:1;  9:22,  "As  the 
days  [On^n^i^p  On^n';:!  Ona  ^HD  ^^^]  wherein  the  Jews  had 
rest  from  their  enemies."  I  quote  this  passage,  in  particular, 
because  it  is  the  only  one  that  I  have  found  with  a  retrospective, 
when  "''Oi<  is  used  after  designations  of  time.  This  passage  has  been 
overlooked  by  Baumann,  who  says  that  when  '^'^'^  belongs  to  a 
Zeithegriff  the  retrospective  fehlt  stets.^  So  also  Gesenius-Kautzsch : 
"Tritt  der  appositionelle  Satz  zu  einem  Zeitbegriff,  so  fehlt  das 
zuriickverweisende  Pronomen  immer."^  I  Chron.  17:5;  II  Chron. 
6:5. 

Examples  of  (6):  Deut.  1:46,  "According  to  the  days  P'i2?X 
□nz^^]  that  [during  which]  ye  shall  dwell";  Deut.  4:10,  "All  the 
days  [n:^lXr;-br  D^^^n  nri  n^S]  that  they  live  upon  the  earth"; 

^Op.  cit.,  p.  33.  2§  138  c. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  IIIJS  55 

Deut.  12:1;  31:13;  Judg.  14:17;  I  Sam.  1:28;  20:31;  27:7,  11; 
II  Sam.  2:11;  I  Kings  2:11;  8:40;  11:42;  14:20;  I  Chron.  6:31. 
Examples  of  (c):  Gen.  45:6,  "There  are  yet  five  years  ["j^S;  112JX 
"I'^Jkj^'l  ^''■;"]  in  which  there  shall  be  no  plowing  or  harvest"; 
Num.  14:34,  "According  to  the  number  of  days  [Dn^ri'H'ilJi^ 
y^ytHTiyi]  in  which  you  spied  out  the  land";  Deut.  2:14,  "and  the 
days  [??."'4l  '^1]^'r  ^'r^V  "'"^^1  ^^  which  we  came  from  Kadesh- 
Barnea  to,"  etc.;  I  Kings  9:10,  "At  the  end  of  twenty  years  [T^2j^^ 
n^nnn  ;:'f -nj^  nbbtp  HDZ]  in  which  Solomon  built  the  two 
houses." 

d)    "I12JX   IN   CLAUSES   OF   SPECIFICATION 

83.  There  are  a  few  instances  where  ^llJ^t  is  employed  in  what 
I  shall  call  specifying  relative  clauses;  cf.  II  Sam.  24:10,  'li^'2  "IHi^t^r 
'rr'W^  ^ll3s; .  This  is  an  instructive  passage.  What  is  the  syntax 
here?  On  the  demonstrative  hypothesis  the  only  possible  con- 
struction would  be  to  regard  "''^i|!  as  depending  on  ■'Hi^tsn  as  an 
accusative  of  nearer  definition:  "I  have  sinned  greatly  with  respect 
to  that — I  have  done  [it]."  In  the  light  of  our  whole  preceding 
discussion,  this  view  is  to  be  set  aside  a  limine.  Nor  is  "'n^ir^  1"j3s 
simply  an  independent  relative  clause:  "I  have  sinned  greatly — 
what  I  have  done."  This  leaves  an  intolerable  chasm  between  the 
two  actions.  Nor  can  "''^Sl  be  purely  a  connective  medium:  "I 
have  sinned  greatly — [connective] — I  have  done."  The  logic  of  the 
sentence  will  help  us  to  determine  the  sjmtax.  The  main  sentence 
"p^^ti"  is  a  confession,  which  implies  a  judgment  on  the  sub- 
ordinate action.  The  latter,  therefore,  must  have  at  least  a  certain 
measure  of  definiteness  as  a  basis  for  the  judgment.  This  is,  of 
course,  not  contained  in  "'ri""?^  alone,  but  only  in  ""O'^iry  plus  ^^i< . 
The  particle,  therefore,  must  have  a  pronominal  content  referring 
to  the  numbering  of  the  people,  for  which  "  David's  heart  smote  him." 
But  since,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  no  outward  syntactic  relation 
between  the  intransitive  "rii^un ,  which  is  complete  in  itself,  and 
the  T"^'Tr2?  "i^Si ,  there  is  only  one  means  left  to  establish  the  required 
relation,  and  that  is  to  regard  the  clause  as  the  equivalent  of  a  speci- 
fying accusative.  Thus  we  arrive  at  the  translation,  "I  have  sinned 
greatly  with  respect  to  what  I  have  done."  What  has  been  discussed 
here  with  some  minuteness  was  felt  by  the  translators:    R.V. :    "I 


56  Carl  Gaenssle 

have  sinned  jireatly  in  that  which  I  have  (k)ne";  Kautzsch:  ''Irh 
habe  schwer  gosimtligt  mit  dcm.  was  ich  tat";  the  Vulgate  euts  the 
knot  with:  Peccavi  valde  in  hoc  facto. 

84.  A  similar  passage  is  Gen.  44:5.  Cn-'T?  "^"OX  Ch?";- . 
In  the  first  place,  we  cannot  render,  "You  have  made  evil  that — 
you  have  done  [?7]."  Baumami  does  not  treat  the  passage.  Is  the 
structure  of  the  sentence  adequately  represented  by,  "You  have 
made  evil  what  you  have  done."  making  "^-X  the  object  of  2n""rr 
and  the  entire  clause  depend  as  object  on  Cpi?'^"?  We  feel  at 
once  that  there  is  an  inconcuinity  between  "jou  have  made  e\dl" 
and  the  supposed  objective  clause  "what  you  have  done"  (the  same 
applies  to  "that").  This  analysis  implies  faulty  logic  in  the  utter- 
ance. The  act  to  which  Joseph  refers  was  evil  in  itself,  and  was  not 
subsequently  made  evil.  In  other  words,  there  was  only  one  actiop. 
and  not  two.  This  was  felt  by  translators  and  commentators: 
"Ye  have  done  evil  m  so  doing''  (E.V.);  "Daran  habt  ihr  Ubel 
getan"  (Kautzsch);  "Eine  bose  Tat  habt  ihr  begangen"  (Keil); 
"Eine  schlechte  Tat  habt  ihr  da  begangen"  (Delitzsch);  "Ihr  habt 
iibel  gehandelt"  (Gunkel).  Similarlj-  Vulg.,  Pessimam  rem  fecistis. 
All  these  renderings  are  correct,  though  somewhat  free.  But  what 
is  the  exact  s\nitax?  A  little  investigation  will  show  that  we  have 
here  a  construction  of  exactly  the  same  t>T3e  as  the  one  discussed 
in  the  preceding  paragraph.  To  prove  this,  a  few  remarks  on  the 
nature  and  function  of  the  Hifil  are  necessary  in  the  first  place. 
The  Hifil  is  of  two  kinds.  Besides  the  ordinary  causative  meaning, 
which  needs  no  further  remark,  the  Hifil  has  what  Konig  calls  the 
"direct  causative,"  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  the  "imier  transitive  or 
intensive"  meaning  (it  is  difficult  to  find  an  adequate  terminology). 
When  thus  employed,  it  mdicates  that  the  action  or  state  expresse<i 
bj-  the  Qal  is  exercised  or  put  into  operation,  without,  however, 
terminating  on  an  object.  Sometimes,  both  of  these  Hifil  forces  are 
found  with  the  same  verb;  cf.  Isa.  9:2,  nr;"I*5ri  ^"'^lir; ,  "he  caused 
joy  to  be  great";  Dan.  9:8,  "b^^j^tl,  "[the  ram]  showed  greatness" 
(used  absolutely).  Among  the  numerous  examples  of  the  direct 
or  injier  causative  Hifil  I  refer  to  the  following:  Isa.  36:21,  ^w^1"^1 , 
"and  they  held  their  peace  [silentiian  facereY';  Isa.  1:18,  3x'Jj3 
^;"Z*" ,  "they  shall  become  white  as  snow,"  i.e.,  "thej-  shall  exhibit 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^"ix  57 

the  quality  of  whiteness";  Dan.  9:5,  T.y^^rt ,  "we  have  acted 
wickedly."  For  further  examples  cf.  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  §  53  d,  e, 
f,  and  Konig',  I,  204  f. 

85.  As  might  be  expected,  this  class  of  Hifil  often  receives  a 
nearer  definition  to  indicate  the  sphere  in  which  the  action  is  exercised 
or  to  which  it  is  limited.  This  specification  is  added:  (1)  by  means 
of  the  infinitive  with  b:  cf.  Ps.  126:2,  niz^b  m"^  b-^r-H , 
''Jahwe  has  manifested  greatness  in  his  doings";  II  Chron.  26:15, 
""•ri!^  ^^bi"  *3  ,  "for  he  was  marvelously  helped,"  i.e.,  "he  showed 
marvelous  success  in  winning  victories"  (which  were  attributed  to 
Jahwe.  Hence  Nif.);  I  Sam.  16:17,  "ylb  -"pv;;  'i2;""X ,  "a  man 
who  shows  skill  in  playing";  (2)  by  means  of  the  infinitive  alone: 
cf.  Ezek.  33:32,  '^l  Z'^'Z ,  "one  who  plays  well";  Isa.  23:16; 
(3)  by  means  of  the  accusative:  cf.  Dan.  11:32,  n'"^Z  '"'r^"'r , 
"  those  acting  wickedly  with  respect  to  the  covenant."  I  have  quoted 
this  passage  first,  because  it  shows  clearly  the  nature  of  the  accom- 
panying accusative.  Deut.  5:25,  ^■'11"  "^ITSl'bj  ^2"I3"rt,  "they 
have  done  well  in  all  they  have  said";  Kautzsch,  "Sie  haben  recht 
mit  dem,  was  sie  geredet  haben";  not,  of  course:  "They  have 
made  good  all  that  they  have  said." 

86.  And  now,  having  thus  cleared  the  way,  we  come  back  to  our 
passage  Gen.  44:5,  Cr^T^'  tJSS;  QH^'^Jj  .  The  verb  >"n  is  among 
those  most  frequently  used  as  an  inner  transitive  Hifil;  cf. 
Gen.  19:7,  ^5^ri  '"S;  N"*S ,  "I  pray  you,  my  brethren,  do  not 
act  wickedly";  Judg.  19:23,  S:  ■>;:n"bx  ""i<"bi< ,  "do  not,  my 
brethren,  do  not  act  wickedly";  I  Kuigs  16:25,  ^'iw^  bb'Z  "^^^l 
T'rS^ ,  "and  he  acted  more  wickedly  than  all  that  were  before 
him";  II  Kings  21:11;  Isa.  1:16;  11:9;  65:25;  Jer.  4:22,  etc. 
Sometimes  this  Hifil  is,  as  in  the  examples  above,  accompanied  with 
the  infinitive  with  b;  cf.  I  Kmgs  14:9,  "nfeb  3?"'ni ,  "thou  hast 
acted  [more]  wickedly  in  thy  doings  [than  all,  etc.]";  Jer.  16:12.  It 
is  also  found  with  the  accusative;  cf.  Mic.  3:4,  ^^7"  "^'iIJSS 
Dr;"bb""^ ,  "according  as  they  have  "^Tought  evil  in  their  doings" 

(R.V.);  Jer.  38:9,  ■■""-T-  ■^'^'^'  ^"-^^"-r  ^^  "^'?~  °^'^V^~  ^"'^~  ^ 
"these  men  have  done  evil  in  all  that  they  have  done  to  Jeremiah." 
These  accusatives  are  specifjong  in  character.  Consequently,  in 
our  passage  Dr"''C"  l-JSI  Dn:7"^ri  it  is  the  ItDS- clause  that  furnishes 


58  Carl  (Jaenssle 

the  necessary  specification  to  Drjl" .  "You  have  done  evil  with 
respect  to  what  you  have  done"  is  the  only  possible  construction. 
Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  clause  is  employed  in  exactly  the  same 
way  as  in  II  Sam.  24:10;  cf.  also  Deut.  18:7,  T^'Iil  ^'m  ^n^p^M , 
" they  have  done  well  as  to  what  they  have  said " ;  R.V. :  "They  have 
well  said  that  which  they  have  spoken"  implies  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  sj-ntax. 

The  bearing  of  these  passages  on  the  demonstrative  theory  is 
obvious. 

e)     MISCELLANEOUS 

87.  The  particle  ■'"bi^  may  refer  to  an  entire  sentence;  cf. 
Exod.  10:6,  "And  thy  houses  shall  be  filled  [with  locusts],  and  the 
houses  of  thy  servants";  ^"nh^  ^S^'i^b  ^125S ;  LXX:  a  ovUirore 
iccpcLKaaLv  ol  iraripes  (tov;  Vulg. :  Quantam  non  viderunt  patres 
(making  "^ylJlSk  refer  to  locusta  and  the  end  of  vs.  4).  This  is  wrong. 
R.V.  as  Baentsch:  "Wie  es  deine  Vorfahren  nie  erlebt  haben." 
This  is  correct.  The  context  shows  that  IllJ^t  sums  up  the  preceding 
statements  about  the  plague  of  locusts  and  is  equivalent  to  "a  thing 
such  as,"  quale.  Similarly,  the  Syriace  ?  introduces,  at  times,  a 
relative  clause  referring  to  an  entire  sentence,  but  in  this  case  it  is 
always  preceded  by  a  correlative.^  The  Assyrian  sa  occasion- 
ally performs  the  same  function.  Jer.  7:31,  "and  they  have  built 
high  places  of  Topheth  ....  to  burn  their  sons  and  daughters 
in  the  fire  psb-by  nnb>-  sb")  'm^  ^b  nilJX]  which  I  commanded 
them  not,  neither  came  it  into  my  mind";  cf.  also  32:35;  Esther 
4:16,  "And  so  I  will  go  to  the  king  [H'^S  xb  niryj]  which  is  not 
according  to  the  law." 

88.  In  at  least  one  instance  ^'^2j^I>  depends  on  a  preposition 
in  the  same  way  as  an  Indo-European  relative;  cf.  Gen.  31:32, 
-■"■;  i<b  ^""bs  ns  Xr^n  niZJSt  ny ,  "with  whom  thou  find- 
est  thy  gods,  [he]  shall  not  five."  Ordinarily,  the  construction 
would  be  yBV  ^123 Si .  Boettcher  is  the  only  one,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  who  assumes  a  disorder  in  the  text.  Sperling  and  Baumami, 
accepting  the  text  as  correct,  hold  that  this  is  the  only  instance  of 
the  kind  in  the  Old  Testament.  Perhaps  this  view  is  correct. 
The  other  passages  usually  referred  to  as  exhibiting  the  same  con- 
struction are  by  no  means  as  clear  as  Gen.  31:32;    cf.  Isa.  47:12, 

»  Noldeke.  Syr.  Grammatik,  §  356. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^tlJb^  59 

'^^^'^yY'r  W^l  ^^?^  T^^?  ^'"^?^  T^-^'^  ^r^Tr^',  "Stand 
forth  now  with  thy  spells  and  the  multitude  of  thy  enchantments 
wherein  thou  hast  labored  from  thy  youth."  The  question  is 
whether  the  S  before  I^X  belongs  to  ^"IpS?  at  the  beginning  of 
the  sentence  (so  Davidson)  or  to  Fl^ji^  (so  Delitzsch  and  Wyn- 
koop).  ^''^X^  would  thus  be  employed  for  the  ordinary  DH^  "I'^IJS  . 
In  favor  of  this  view  is  the  fact  that  the  verb  ^^  is  ordinarily  con- 
strued with  2;  cf.  Isa.  43:22;  62:8;  Josh.  24:13.  But  it  is  not 
to  be  overlooked  that  other  verbs,  usually  construed  with  a  preposi- 
tion (e.g.,  ^/JS;  already  referred  to,  il'H ,  and  ^H^),  frequently 
omit  the  preposition  when  used  in  connection  with  TCS .  The 
same  thing  may  have  taken  place  with  yy  .  Moreover  (if  the 
text  is  correct),  we  have  ri^'3^  "^123 Nl  without  a  preposition  in  vs. 
15  of  the  same  chapter.  Rather,  therefore,  than  assume  the  anoma- 
lous "i^iSI^  as  being  employed  for  DHIl  TOS ,  I  prefer  to  make  the 
preposition  depend  on  ""p^  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  and 
render  thus:  "Stand  forth  ....  thy  spells  ....  with  what  thou 
hast  labored,"  etc.,  making  the  clause  not  attributive  but  appo- 
sitional  to  the  preceding  nouns.  Isa.  56:4  need  not  detain  us  long. 
The  words  are  ^ri^S"  '''^^^  ^""Jt^  >  ''Choose  what  pleases  me." 
Again  Wynkoop  says  "''^i^S  =  iS  '^^^  •  There  can  be  no  question 
that  ^  depends  on  ^1"3  and  subordinates  the  entire  clause.  VSn 
requires  no  preposition,  being  often  construed  with  the  accusative; 
cf.  Isa.  55:11,  ^niiSn  IllJ^-nX  Timy  DS  ^3,  "but  accomplishes 
that  which  I  please";  Isa.  1:11.  Finally,  Zech.  12:10  may  be 
briefly  discussed  here.  The  passage  reads  rii<  "'bi<  ^ti'^SHT 
^"'j!5'l"TCS! ,  "They  shall  look  upon  me,  whom  they  have  pierced." 
Konig  accepts  this  as  an  undoubted  instance  of  the  relative  use  of 
^■fflS  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term.  So,  many  interpreters: 
g!  a.  Smith:  "They  shall  look  to  him  [reading  Vbx  for  "bs] 
whom  they  have  pierced";  Briggs:  "They  ....  upon  me,  whom 
they  have  pierced";  Vulg.:  Adspicient  ad  me  quem  confixerunt. 
Others  assume  textual  corruption;  e.g.,  Baumann,Gesenius-Kautzsch, 
Wellhausen,  Nowack.  Keil  thinks  that  the  rii<  before  '^'^^  is 
added  for  sake  of  clearness,  since  the  particle  ^"^^  might  otherwise 
be  regarded  as  the  subject  of  T^^Ti .  Nowack  says  the  expression 
is  unhehrdisch.  There  may  be  a  parallel  case  in  Jer.  38:9,  "These 
men  have  done  evil  [TCJ^'b^  HlSt]  with  respect  to  all  that  they  have 


60  Carl  Gaensslk 

done  unto  JcM-cniinh  pi--bs  ^^b'^H  "'^^^5  ns]  whom  [?]  they 
cast  into  the  pit."  Giesebrecht  simply  cancels  the  HS  before  "^V?^  • 
Konig  says  it  means  "mit  Bezug  darauf,  dass."  This  may  be  cor- 
rect, and  it  may  not.  With  the  means  at  our  disposal  there  seems 
to  be  no  possibilitj^  of  definitely  deciding.  If  "^llJi^  flSi  be  retained 
in  the  sense  of  whom,  we  must  admit  that  it  is  very  unusual,  but 
no  more  so  than  ■^■:JS  '2V  in  Gen.  31:32. 

89.  "Ganz  eigentiimHch,"  says  the  grammar  of  Gosenius- 
Kautzsch,  "ist  der  absolute  Gebrauch  von  1tpJ5  in  der  Formel 
■^S  nin"'  ■'Zl  m'H  1123s  'das  [ists] — es  erging  als  Wort  Jahwes 
an.'"  This  is,  indeed,  somewhat  "peculiar,"  but  not  without 
analogies  in  other  Semitic  languages.  Besides,  the  expression 
"absolute  Gebrauch"  is  misleading,  growing  out  of  the  attempt  to 
save  the  demonstrative  character  of  the  particle.  What  we  have 
here  is  an  inversion  of  the  usual  order  in  the  structure  of  dependent 
relative  clauses,  inasmuch  as  the  antecedent  is  drawn  into  the  clause. 
Here  we  can  adopt  Konig's  Satzverflechtung  or,  as  sometimes  called, 
Satzverschrdnkung.  I  have  found  twelve  instances  of  the  attraction 
of  the  antecedent  by  the  relative  clause.  Of  these  Konig  cites  six 
{Lehrgeb.,  Ill,  414  f.).  Four  occur  in  Jeremiah,  all  having  the  same 
form  as  the  example  above;  cf.  Jer.  14:1;  46:1;  47:1;  49:34, 
"That  which  came  as  Jahwe's  word."     For  the  remaining  examples 

cf.  Num.  33:4,  "bs  DHn  nirr  Hsri  "ij5si  ni<  D^")np_7j  n^y^'z^ 

■^1321,  "while  the  Egyptians  were  burying  all  the  firstborn 
whom   Jahwe   had   smitten    among    them";    I   Sam.    24:19,    PSI 

nniD  -ni5  n^ir^-ni25Ji  nx  nrn  rn^n  [nb^^n?],  "And  thou 

hast  declared  this  day  the  good  which  thou  hast  done  me"  (so,  if 
we  adopt  the  Massoretic  reading) ;  adopting  the  proposed  emenda- 
tion, "And  thou  hast  increased  this  day,"  etc.  Nowack,  "Und 
zwar  hast  du  heute  noch  vermehrt,  was  du  Gutes  an  mir  gethan  hast," 
conforming  exactly  to  the  Hebrew  construction.  I  Sam.  25:30, 
"And  it  shall  come  to  pass  when  Jahwe  shall  have  done  to  my  lord 
[7\^by  nzilsn-nwS:  ^S'n-nirS  bbS],  according  to  all  the  good  that 
he  has  spoken  concerning  thee."  II  Kings  12:6,  "They  shall 
repair  the  breaches  of  the  house  [pin  Ut  i^-l'n^-^^i^_  bbb], 
according  to  every  breach  that  is  found  there."  (But,  perhaps,  it 
is  preferable  to  join  W^  with  "I123X,  "according  to  every  place  where 
a  breach  is  found."     Then  there  is  no  attraction.     Konig,  however, 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "^"I2J5<  61 

counts  this  passage  among  his  examples.)  Ezek.  12:25,  "^Sli^ 
^2*1  ^nny;  T^SS  n5<,  "I  shall  speak  the  word  that  I  will  speak.'' 
Toy  rejects  "^^^  nx  "inii^  (SBOT),  but  this  is  unnecessary.  The 
text,  as  it  stands,  expresses  the  determination  of  Jahwe  to  announce 
his  will  more  strongly  than  if  the  words  are  omitted,  and  this  suits 
the  purport  of  the  whole  passage.  Ezek.  12:28,  ^2"  ^ni5<  "1123i< 
niry]''! ,  "the  word  which  I  shall  speak  shall  be  performed";  Exod. 

1"b3"b3 ,  "according  to  all  that  I  shall  show  thee,  the  model  of 
the  tabernacle  and  the  model  of  all  the  furniture  thereof";  II  Kings 
8:12,  "Because  I  know  [Ti^'^  bss-j'tT^.  "nb  nir^n-nilJJ^  nx]  the 
evil  that  thou  will  do  unto  the  children  of  Israel."  In  all  these 
cases,  the  relative  particle  with  which  the  sentence  begins,  and  which 
is  necessarily  vague,  receives  the  required  specification  by  the  follow- 
ing noun.  Hence  we  may  say  that  the  antecedent  is  drawn  into  the 
clause,  though  this  refers  only  to  the  external  make-up.  No  doubt, 
there  is  a  psychological  basis  for  such  constructions.  To  venture  an 
explanation,  I  should  say  that  the  statement  is  begun  without  the 
necessary  clearness  and  distinctness,  this  again  naturally  calling  for  a 
supplementary  word  in  order  to  render  the  expression  sufficiently 
precise.  Hence  the  unusual  position  of  these  "antecedents."  On 
this  principle  we  explain  another  passage,  which,  though  differing 
from  the  above  in  one  respect,  may  be  properly  inserted  here.  In 
Amos  5:1  we  have  the  following:  "^bSi  ^llJi^  nTH  ^n^n-n5<  Wri 
nrp  Dn^bj;  &<u:2  ,  "Hear  this  word,  which  I  lift  up  for  you — a 
lamentation."  This  passage  differs  from  the  above  in  that  the 
^'i2J&<  has  an  antecedent,  while  it  agrees  with  them  in  having  an  addi- 
tional word  in  the  clause  for  ;the  sake  of  clearness  and  precision. 
Constructions  of  this  kind  are  found  in  other  Semitic  languages, 
especially  in  Ethiopic,  less  frequently  in  Syriac^  and  Assyrian. 
Cf.  Tabti  katussun  uba'ima  sa  epussunuti  dunku, 
"My  favor  I  required  at  their  hands,  the  kindness  which  I  showed 
them";  literally,  "what  I  did  unto  them  by  way  of  kindness. "^ 

90.  We  also  find  that  the  relative  clause  precedes  its  antecedent. 
I  have  found  two  instances  of  this  kind.  Gen.  46:20,  "And  unto 
Joseph   were   born   in   the   land   of    Egypt    [HDCX  '^'^TilT  ^'^i<}, 

1  Cf.  Noldeke,  Syrische  Grammatik,  §  352. 

2  Delitzsch,   Assyrische  Grammatik,  §  147,  1. 


62  Carl  Gaenssle 

whom  Asnath  bore  him  ....  [n^^2^^t-nX1  HlSD^J-nS;],  Manasseh 
and  Ephraim"  (accusative  after  impersonal  use  of  passive;  cf.  the 
grammars).  Both  Gunkel  and  Ball  reject  the  relative  clause  as  a 
redactional  addition.  If  it  be  such,  we  should  expect  the  redactor 
to  have  put  the  clause  in  a  more  natural  position,  that  is,  after  the 
antecedent.  Gunkel  further  suggests  the  addition  of  D''D^  before 
■'"(TX .  In  this  way,  irregularities  are  easily  overcome.  Again,  we 
find  the  same  construction  in  other  Semitic  languages;  cf.  ul 
i  p  s  a  h  s  a  e  z  u  z  u  k  a  b  i  1 1  i  b  e  1  li  t  i  s  u  n  u  ,  "not  was  pacified 
the  heart  of  their  lordship,  which  was  angry. "^  Hence  there  is  no 
cogent  reason  for  rejecting  the  clause  on  grammatical  grounds.     Cf. 

also  Josh.  18:2,  Q'pniij  TOntp  Qnbnrns!  ^pbn-sb  nsii3,  "And 

there  remained  among  the  children  of  Israel  seven  tribes,  who  had 
not  divided  their  inheritance." 

91.  As  for  the  position  of  "''CX  ,  it  follows,  as  a  rule,  immediately 
upon  the  antecedent.  But  there  are  exceptions,  the  particle  being 
sometimes  removed  from  its  antecedent  by  intervening  words. 
Thus  we  find  it  separated  by  a  participial  phrase;  cf.  Gen.  21:3, 
"And  Abraham  called  the  name  of  his  son  [ib'lbiBH]  that  was 
born  unto  him  [i3Tnb^  "'"^^j)  whom  Sarah  bare  unto  him, 
Isaac";  Josh.  2:3,  "Bring  forth  the  men  p^Sl  ^'bj^  Q^5<nM 
?jn''Zlb  ^S3],  that  have  come  to  thee,  that  have  entered  into  thy 
house."  So,  if  the  clause  in  this  case  is  original.  Lev.  11:21, 
"But  this  ye  shall  eat  of  all  the  winged  creeping  things  [T^brin 
rb:nb  by^p  D^-JS  [ib]  Xb  nil3s  5?n^^  b^]  that  goes  upon  all 
fours  that  has  legs  upon  its  feet."  In  this  case  the  clause  restricts 
the  idea  expressed  by  the  preceding  participle.  The  separation 
becomes  still  greater,  when  in  addition  to  a  participial  phrase  another 
relative  clause  intervenes  between  TlIJNk  and  its  antecedent;  cf. 
Ezra  2 : 1-2,  " These  are  the  children  of  the  province  T^lpw  Q^V^" 

pb-jj^in^b  ^nr^j^i  bnnb  b2n-T|b-^  n^2i2-iD^n]  nb^n  "nijs  nbijn 

....  bnnnT-ny  ^Sn-n^S;  (2)  .  .  .  .]  that  went  up  out  of  the 
captivity  of  those  carried  away,  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  had 
carried  away  ....  and  [who]  returned  unto  Jerusalem;    (2)  who 

came  with  Zerubbabel "A  similar  construction,  but  without 

a  preceding  participle,  is  found  in  II  Chron.  32:14,  Tl'bX'bSS    "'"J 

•Delitzsch,  Assyrische  Grammatik,  §  147,  1. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  TCS<  63 

"who  [was  there]  among  all  the  gods  of  those  nations  whom 
my  fathers  destroyed,  who  was  able  to  rescue  his  people?"  In 
like  manner,  a  temporal  clause  may  intervene;  cf.  Gen.  41 :50,  "And 
unto  Joseph  were  born  two  sons  [^"^^  n^^H  flj^  Jii^n  D^t23, 
ri:CiS!  i>"niy]  before  the  year  of  the  famine  came,  whom  Asnath 
bore  unto  him."  Again,  the  verb  of  the  principal  clause  may  sepa- 
rate the  particle  from  its  antecedent;  cf.  I  Sam.  10:16,  ^nTni<1 
bs^7J123  T;i5  nizJS  ib  T3n-i<b  TO^b^alj,  "But  the  matter  of 
the  kingdom  he  made  not  known  unto  him,  whereof  Samuel  had 
spoken."  So  far  as  the  grammar  is  concerned,  there  is  no  reason  for 
rejecting  the  relative  clause.  Cf.  also  Isa.  30:24.  The  same 
construction  is  found  in  Assyrian,  e.g.,  katasu  ukarrit  sa 
kastu  isbatu  ana  mithusi  Asur,  "I  cut  off  his  hands, 
which  seized  the  bow  to  fight  against  Ashur."i  Cf.  also  Isa.  29:22, 
"Thus says  Jahwepn-^ZX-nyt  nns  ^ICX  npT  n^n-bs]  concerning 
the  house  of  Israel,  who  redeemed  Abraham."  Duhm  remarks  on  this 
passage,  "AUerdings  ist  der  Relativsatz  jetzt  reichlich  weit  von  dem 
Substantiv  getrennt;  eben  deshalb  muss  man  mit  Lowth  im  Vorher- 
gehenden  bj)»  statt  bs  sprechen.  Darum  spricht  Jahwe,  der  Gott 
des  Houses  Israel,  der  Abraham  erloste."  In  the  light  of  similar 
constructions,  this  objection  has  no  weight.  For  other  examples  of 
a  different  kind,  cf.  Gen.  24:24;   I  Sam.  29:3. 

92.  Occasionally  a  relative  clause  with  "^tliSl  continues  an  idea 
begun  with  a  participle;  cf.  Josh.  24:17,  ....  ^DDb^  "by^ri  S^H 

nbx-  nibisn  nh>5n-ny5  ^rr^b  ri-^y  ^tijj^i  ,  "He  it  is  'that  has 

brought  us  up  [out  of  the  land  of  Egypt]  and  that  has  performed 
these  signs  in  our  eyes,"  Mic.  3:3,  "^^i^)  H^T  ^nnj^']  ^ii:  ""^p 
'^'B'S  ^yt^  ^bpN  ,  "Ye  that  hate  good  and  love  evil  and  that  devour 
the  flesh  of  my  people." 

/)    THE   RETROSPECTIVE   COMPLEMENT 

93.  Baumann  attaches  much  importance  to  the  'Aid  as  support- 
ing his  theory  of  the  character  and  syntax  of  ^IIJSI .  He  calls  par- 
ticular attention  to  the  retrospective  in  relative  clauses  belonging 
to  an  antecedent  in  the  first  or  second  person.  In  these  cases  the 
complement  appears  either  as  a  separate  pronoun,  or  suffix,  or 
inflectional  addition  (according  to  the  nature  of  the  sentence),  almost 
exclusively  in  the  same  person  as  the  antecedent.     The  following 

1  Kraetzschmar,  B-4,  I,  422. 


64  (\\HL  (Iaknssle 

examples  will  illustnitc:  Gen.  45:4,  Dri-lD'^-nilJX  nj""i<  "CT  ^X 
■ni<  ,  "I  am  Joseph  your  brother,  whom  ye  have  sold";  Isa.  49:23, 
■'ip  TJin':  ^^b  nips  n^rr  ^ji<,  "I  am  Jahwe,  ill  whom  those  that 
trust  shall  not  be  ashamed";  Deut.  5:6,  ?]^n';:in  ^dS  "1"'  "rb^^ 
□']'^:i"2  'C^i^'Z  ,  "I  am  Jahwe,  who  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt";  Isa.  51:17,  Di'TS  m"^  1^;2  r\'T\t  ^^^  D^b'^^i^  ^'^^p 
inT^n ,  "Arise,  Jerusalem,  that  hast  <lrunk  from  the  hand  of  Jahwe 
the  cup  of  his  wrath." 

94.  On  the  basis  of  these  facts,  Baumann  makes  the  summary 
statement  that  the  possibility  of  such  a  construction  is  conditioned 
by  his  view  of  the  nature  and  syntax  of  the  relative  particle;^  i.e., 
"'TCJIl  is  a  demonstrative  belonging  to  the  antecedent,  having,  there- 
fore, no  influence  on  the  attributive  clause.  It  is  true,  this  explana- 
tion fits  the  case.  But  this  alone  does  not  prove  the  correctness  of 
the  theory.  A  stringent  proof  must  exclude  the  possibility  of  any 
other  explanation  of  the  phenomenon  in  question.  This,  however, 
is  not  the  case.  We,  who  reject  the  demonstrative  theory,  can  easily 
find  another  explanation.  The  principle  involved  here  is  not  a  great 
anomaly  at  all.  While  it  is  true  that,  as  a  rule,  we  should  expect  the 
third  person  in  the  verb  of  the  relative  clause,  the  correspondence 
of  the  person  of  the  verb  with  that  of  the  antecedent  is  not  without 
analogy — is,  in  fact,  quite  common  even  in  Indo-European.  Indeed, 
to  a  certain  extent,  it  is  the  only  normal  and  admissible  usage.  In 
the  last  passage  cited  above  the  use  of  the  third  person  in  the  relative 
clause  would  be  impossible.  "Arise,  Jerusalem,  that  hast  drunk" 
is  required  by  the  English  usus  loquendi,  and  is  by  no  means,  of  course, 
an  accommodation  to  the  Hebrew  form  of  expression.  So  also  the 
German  "die  du  getrunken  hast"  (Luther  and  Kautzsch).  Cf. 
Milton:  "Thou,  O  Spirit,  that  dost  prefer  before  all  temples  the 
upright  heart  and  pure"  {Paradise  Lost,  I,  17).  If  the  antecedent 
be  in  the  first  person,  the  English  again  admits  the  first  person  in 
the  verb  of  the  relative  clause.  Deut.  5:6  employs  the  imperfect 
in  English  ("who  brought  thee"),  and  hence  does  not  furnish  an 
illustration;  but  suppose  we  substitute  the  perfect  ("I  am  Jahwe 
who  have  brought  thee"),  should  we  then  violate  the  English  idiom? 
Cf.  Scott:  "It  will  break  my  heart  that  have  been  toiling  more  Uke 
a  dog  than  a  man"  {Roh  Roy);   Chaucer:   "A  tale  of  me  that  am  a 

»  Op.  cit.,  p.  29. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "i123j5  65 

pover  man"  (Canterbury  Tales).  The  same  phenomenon  is  very 
common  in  Latin;  cf.  Quaeso,  parce,  inquit,  mihi,  quae  tibi  molestis 
muribus  purgo  [instead  of  purgat]  domum  (Phaedrus  i.  22.  3);  Haec 
omnia  feci,  qui  sodalis  Dolabellae  eram  [instead  of  erat].^  It  is  not 
miknown  in  Greek;  cf.  "Ayoir'  dv  {xdraiov  avbp'  eKirodcov,  6s  ...  . 
KOLKravov  [instead  of  KaKrave]  (Sophocles  Antigone  1339). 

95.  The  tendencies  of  language  exhibited  by  these  examples 
show  plainly  that  the  use  of  the  second  or  first  person  in  the  verb  of 
the  relative  clause  decides  nothing  with  reference  to  the  syntactic 
position  of  the  introductory  particle.  If  an  undoubted  relative, 
about  whose  syntactic  position,  as  belonging  to  the  dependent  clause, 
there  is  no  question,  can  be  so  far  weakened  as  to  lose  the  grammatical 
control  of  its  predicate,  the  latter  agreeing  in  person  with  the  ante- 
cedent instead  of  with  its  subject,  what  may  we  not  expect  in  the 
case  of  so  vague  and  indefinite  a  word  as  "ni3iJ|  ?  For  vague  and 
indefinite  it  is  on  any  theory  of  its  origin.  In  an  earher  part  of  this 
dissertation  I  have  already  indicated  to  what  extent  the  use  of 
ITIJJ^  may  be  paralleled  by  that  of  the  German  wo.  So  I  need  not 
repeat  my  remarks  on  this  point  here.  To  show  the  weakness  of  the 
demonstrative  theory  still  more,  I  should  like  to  add  that  Baumann's 
mode  of  reasoning  will  appl}^  equally  well  to  the  English  and  other 
examples  just  cited  and,  if  applied,  will  lead  to  some  very  preposter- 
ous conclusions.  How  easy  to  show,  for  instance,  that  in  the  sen- 
tence, "Stand  up,  Jerusalem,  that  hast  drunk,"  "that"  must  belong 
appositionally  to  Jerusalem,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  second  person 
in  the  verb !  But  English  being  a  living  language,  we  make  no  such 
blunders.  The  real  explanation  of  the  phenomenon  we  are  consider- 
ing is,  to  my  mind,  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  these  clauses  contain 
a  kind  of  latent  anacoluthon,  though,  of  course,  not  felt  as  such. 
While  the  clause  is  begun  with  the  relative  strictly  requiring  a  verb  in 
the  third  person,  the  first  person  (or  second,  as  the  case  may  be)  of 
the  antecedent  as  the  real  agens  forces  itself  upon  the  consciousness 
of  the  speaker  and  insensibly  gives  a  twist  to  the  construction.  In 
other  words,  the  logic  and  psychology  of  the  utterance  take  prece- 
dence over  strict  grammatical  sequence  and  accuracy.  The  relative, 
in  such  cases,  shows  a  tendency,  even  in  Indo-European,  to  become 
a  conjunctive  particle  between  the  main  and  subordinate  propositions. 

I  Cf.  Lane,  Latin  Grammar,  §  1807. 


66  Carl  Gaenssle 

And  this  tciuloncy  would  he  proportionately  stronger  with  the  Hebrew 
"*'rS ,  resulting  in  constructions  that  we  can  no  longer  imitate  in 
modern  languages. 

96.  Baumann  remarks  further:  "Die  ganz  gleichc  Erscheinung 
[i.e.,  the  correspondence  of  the  person  of  the  retrospective  with 
that  of  the  antecedent]  finden  wir  auch  in  den  anderen  semitischen 
Sprachen."^  This  is  not  quite  true.  Before  Baumann's  dissertation 
appeared  the  investigations  of  Kraetzschmar  with  reference  to  the 
Assyrian  §  a  had  shown  that  in  the  Assyrian  the  person  of  the  retro- 
spective is  wholly  independent  of  the  person  of  the  antecedent.  In 
other  words,  the  retrospective  appears  invariably  in  the  third  person, 
though  the  clause  may  refer  to  an  antecedent  in  the  first  or  second 
person.  Kraetzschmar  says:  "Das  Assyrische  steht  also  in  dieser 
Hinsicht  noch  auf  einer  urspriinglicheren  Stufe  als  die  iibrigen  semiti- 
schen Sprachen."-  Cf.  sarru  sa  ilu  idiisu  atta,  "thou  art  a 
king  whom  God  has  known " ;  Mannu  atta  sa  ana  sarriitu 
inambusu,  "whoever  thou  mayest  be,  whom  they  have  called 
to  exercise  royalty " ;  Anaku  sa  ana  simat  sarrutu  isimu 
simatsu,  "I,  whose  lot  they  appointed  for  the  exercise  of 
roj^alty."  In  view  of  this  fact,  Baumann's  argument  on  the  basis 
of  the  retrospective  is  invalid. 

97.  In  this  connection,  a  word  may  be  said  about  Konig's  view 
of  the  origin  of  the  "Aid.  In  explaining  the  origin  of  the  relative 
construction,  Konig  sets  out  from  the  idea  that  originally  two  inde- 
pendent propositions  were  paratactically  co-ordinated  without  a 
conjunctive  word  of  any  kind  (Asyndetische  Parataxe).  Accordingly, 
the  sentence  ^HS  DFTiD'J  112J1S!  ZZi""  "'jbX  would  consist  originally 
of  the  two  separate  statements,  "I  am  Joseph,"  "Ye  sold  me."  As 
Konig  puts  it,  "das  Identifizierungselement  (arab.  'Aidun)  besass 
im  allgemeinen  die  Prioritat  der  Existenz  vor  dem  die  Relation 
vermittelnden  Pronomen."^  This  asyndetic  juxtaposition,  Konig 
remarks,  is  very  common  in  poetic  language,  which  has  a  tendency 
to  retain  or  revive  archaic  forms  of  expression.  Later  on,  when  the 
usus  loquendi  began  to  "bridge  over"  the  parataktische  Asyndese, 
that  is  to  say,  when  by  the  introduction  of  the  relative  particle  the 
subordinate  construction  began  to  displace  the  co-ordinate,  the 
original  form  of  the  clause  was  in  most  cases  (allermeist)  left  un- 

1  Op.  cil..  p.  28.  2  BA.  I,  424.  '  Lehrgeb..  III.  §  384. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "lll5&<  67 

changed.  The  word  first  employed  to  estabUsh  this  relation  was 
the  demonstrative  tlT ,  and  then  123  and  ^12 i^  were  similarly  used.* 
There  seems  to  be  much  speculation  in  all  this.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
very  precarious,  in  the  absence  of  clear  data,  to  give  an  account  of 
the  origin  of  certain  modes  of  expression.  While  poetry  has  the 
tendency  ascribed  to  it  by  Konig,  it  also  has  a  tendency  to  be  more 
concise  and  succinct  than  prose,  thus  dispensing  with  all  unnecessary 
verbiage.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  ^12Ji<  is  comparatively  rare  in 
the  poetic  sections  does  not  necessarily  prove  that  they  represent 
a  stage  of  language  prior  to  the  general  use  of  "i^S ,  but  simply 
that  the  particle  was  dispensed  with  as  not  being  absolutely  required. 
On  other  grounds,  however,  we  may  safely  assume  that  "i'^!}<  came 
in  later  as  a  relative  particle  than  the  demonstrative  HT  or  IIJ . 
"•Ipyt ,  as  an  original  noun  of  place,  could,  of  course,  not  have  per- 
formed the  function  of  a  relative  particle,  until  it  had  all  but  lost 
its  primitive  meaning,  whereas  the  most  obvious  word  to  introduce 
an  attributive  clause  is  a  demonstrative. ^  When,  however,  "llflS 
was  introduced,  it  would  not,  by  reason  of  its  already  faded  char- 
acter, affect  the  structure  of  the  sentence,  at  the  same  time  following 
as  closely  as  possible  the  analogy  of  uT  or  113 .  In  this  way,  the 
general  correspondence  between  the  construction  of  the  demonstrative 
relatives  and  that  of  '^'^^_  is  to  be  explained.  I  say  general,  for,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  preceding  pages,  the  difference  remained,  in  some 
respects,  so  apparent  as  to  show  that  "1113^^  cannot  be  traced  to  a 
demonstrative  source. 

98.  It  is  not  my  intention  here  to  discuss  the  "A  i  d  in  all  its 
aspects.  This  would  be,  in  large  measure,  simply  to  restate  what 
has  already  been  said  by  others.  Nevertheless,  my  study  of  the 
subject  has  led  to  some  results  at  variance  with  the  statements  of  a 
grammar  so  widely  used  as  Gesenius-Kautzsch.  Consequently,  I 
shall  record  these  results.  With  reference  to  the  suppression  of 
the  'Aid,  the  grammar  makes  the  following  statement:  "Diese 
Unterdriickung  des  riickbeziiglichen  Pronomens  findet  besonders 
dann  statt,  wenn  es  .  .  .  .  als  Prononien  separatum  einen  Subjekts- 
nominativ    im    Nominalsatz    reprasentieren   wiirde Nur   in 

'  Op.   cit.,    §  59  flf. 

2  Cf.  the  English  "  that,"  which  is  very  old  as  a  relative,  whereas  "  who  "  and  "which.'! 
originally  interrogatives,  came  into  use  much  later. 


68  Carl  Oaenssle 

negativcn  Nominalsatzen  win!  das  riickbezugliche  Pronomen  nicht 
seltcn  ])eisefugt."^  I  have  found  the  contrary  to  be  the  case.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  are  in  all  thirty-five  instances  of  this  use  of  the 
pronominal  complement  in  nominal  relative  clauses  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Of  this  number,  fiftcoi  are  found  in  negative  clauses,  and 
iarntij  in  positive.  The  examples  of  the  first  class  are  the  following: 
Gen.  7:2,  8;  17:12;  20:33;  Lev.  11:26;  Num.  17:5;  Deut.  17:15; 
20:15;  Judg.  19:12;  I  Sam.  11:7;  1  Kings  8:41;  9:20;  Koh.  8:13; 
II  Chron.  6:22;  8:7  (the  last  two  being  parallel  to  I  Kings  8:41 
and  9 :  20  respectively) .  The  following  are  the  examples  of  the  second 
class:  Gen.  9:3;  Lev.  11:26,  39;  Num.  9:13;  14:8,  27;  35:31; 
Deut.  20:20;  I  Sam.  10:19;  II  Kings  25:19;  Jer.  27:9;  52:25; 
Ezek.  20:32;  43:19;  Had.  1:9;  Ps.  16:3;  Ruth  4:15;  Koh.  4:2; 
7:26;  Neh.  2: 18.  Of  these,  Ezek.  20:32  and  Ps.  16:3  may  be  ques- 
tioned. In  the  former  passage,  "11231}<  is  by  many  taken  as  a  con- 
junction, though  there  is  no  strict  necessity  for  this.  As  for  Ps.  16:3, 
which,  if  we  adopt  the  present  punctuation,  ~^~  V^^  "^^^  would 
present  the  only  instance  in  the  Old  Testament  where  the  retro- 
spective is  separated  from  the  ^IIJS  in  positive  sentences,  the  text 
is  probably  corrupt.  Driver  suggests  ri^Jj  V'l'J^S'  "'''^^  •  In  all 
negative  sentences  the  retrospective  is  invariably  separated  from  the 
particle. 

99.  From  the  grammar  referred  to  it  would  appear  furthermore 
that  the  'A  i  d  is  more  frequently  found  in  negative  relative  clauses 
of  a  nominal  character  than  in  verbal  clauses  in  which  the  'A  i  d 
represents  the  object.  "Diese  Unterdriickung  findet  besonders 
dann  statt,  wenn  es  [i.e.,  the  "Aid]  einen  Objektsaccusativ  .... 

reprasentieren  wiirde Nur  in  negativen  Nominalsatzen  wird 

das  riickbeziigliche  Pronomen  nicht  selten  beigefiigt."  I  have  found 
that  the  'Aid  as  representing  einen  Objektsaccusativ  is  much  more 
common  than  in  either  type  of  nominal  clauses  where  it  represents 
the  Subjektsnominativ.  If  none  has  escaped  my  notice,  there  are 
sixty  instances  of  the  kind  in  the  Old  Testament.  Cf.  Gen.  5:29; 
21:2;  27:27;  45:4;  Exod.  6:5;  25:2;  28:3;  Lev.  16:32;  23:2,27; 
25:42;  Num.  13:32;  34:13;  35:25;  Deut.  11:12;  12:2;  13:3; 
18:14,  21,  22;  20:48;  29:25;  31:4;  32:46;  34:10;  Josh.  2:10; 
10:25;    14:1;    I    Kings   9:21;    11:34;    21:25;    II   Kings    16:3    (cf. 

1  §  138  6. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^t25^5  69 

17:8  for  the  same  construction  without  the  retrospective);  19:4 
Isa.   19:25;    28:4;    29:11;    37:4;    62:2;    Jer.    8:2   (thrice);    19:4 
27:20;  29:22;  44:3;  Ezek.  4:10;  5:16;   15:6;  20:13;  32:9;  36:21 
Zech.   7:14;    Ps.    1:4;    88:6;    94:12;    107:2;    Koh.  7:11;    Esther 
7:5;    10:2;    II  Chron.  22:7. 

100.  That  there  is  one  case  of  a  retrospective  after  a  time- 
designation  has  already  been  pointed  out.     Cf.  §  82. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  our  task,  I  should  like  to  add  a  few  further 
remarks  by  way  of  reinforcing  the  criticism  attempted  in  the  foregoing  pages 
of  the  syntax  of  "iTIJi^ .  Granted  the  demonstrative  origin  of  our  particle, 
there  is  still  an  Achilles  heel  in  the  Boettcher-Baumann  syntax.  This  lies 
in  the  fact  that  no  allowance  is  made  for  syntactic  shiftings  and  changes, 
such  as  are  sure  to  take  place  more  or  less  in  every  living  language.  Boettcher 
and  his  followers  confound  the  results  of  historico-philological  science  (assum- 
ing "112355  to  be  a  demonstrative)  with  the  actual  xisus  loquendi.  It  is  a 
philological  truism  that  whatever  the  origin  of  a  certain  construction  may 
have  been,  the  later  usage  may  be  something  totally  different.  This  principle 
applies  in  particular  to  the  mutual  relation  between  the  main  and  subordinate 
proposition^.  Here  a  particle  or  a  pronoun  that  belonged  primarily  to  the 
main  sentence  has  in  numerous  instances  insensibly  shifted  its  syntactic 
position,  being  then  conceived  by  the  Sprachgefiihl  as  belonging  to  the  sub- 
ordinate clause.  Such  is  the  case  in  Latin;  cf.  Simulatque  (simulac)  de 
Caesaris  adventu  cognitum  est,  ad  eum  venit  {De  hello  Gall.  v.  33).  In  con- 
structions of  this  kind  atque  belonged  originally  to  the  main  sentence  ad  eum 
venit;  but  it  united  with  simul  and  was  then  no  longer  felt  to  belong  to  venit. 
So  also  postquam,  priusquam,  etc.  Similarly  in  Enghsh,  e.g.,  "as  soon  as," 
and  in  German  so  bald  als,  auch  wenn,  etc.,  one  element  of  these  particles 
belonging  originally  to  the  main  proposition;  but,  coalescing  later  with  the 
other  particle,  both  were  then  felt  as  introducing  the  dependent  clause.  A 
very  instructive  example  of  this  kind  is  the  commonest  of  all  English  or 
German  conjunctions,  namely  "that,"  da.ss.  "'Ich  sehe,  dass  er  zufrieden 
ist,'  ist  hervorgegangen  aus:  'Ich  sehe  das:  er  ist  zufrieden.' "^  In  other 
words,  what  was  originally  a  demonstrative  pronoun  belonging  syntactically 
to  the  governing  sentence  has  detached  itself  from  its  primary  position  as 
object  of  the  main  clause  and  become  the  introductory  particle  of  the  sub- 
ordinate clause. 

A  similar  phenomenon  is  noticeable  in  tracing  the  development  of  the 
demonstrative  pronoun  into  the  relative.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
relative  demonstratives  "that,"  der,  die,  das,  belonged  at  the  outset  to  the 
main  sentence,  but  in  process  of  time  they  were  drawn  into  the  relative  clause. 

'  Paul,  Principien  der  Sprachgeschichte,  §  211. 


70  Carl  Caenssle 

Tliis  i.s  attested  l)y  tlie  fact  that  sitlc  by  sicie  with  tlie  demonstratives  the 
interrogative  jironouns,  "who,"  "which,"  icelcher,  trelche,  welches,  have 
assumed  tlie  relative  function,  which  could  have  occurred  only  after  the 
demonstratives  had  severed  their  connection  with  the  principal  proposition 
and  attachetl  themselves  syntactically  to  the  secondary  clause. 

The  same  thing  has  admittedlj'^ — though,  of  course,  not  to  such  a  degree 
— taken  place  at  least  in  some  Semitic  languages.  This,  too,  Baumann  con- 
cedes. Are  we  then  to  assume  that  TIlj^<  (granting  it  to  have  been  a  demon- 
strative) remained  fixed  and  stationary  throughout  its  entire  history;  that, 
in  short,  a  relative  construction  never  arose  ?  We  have  seen  that  even  the 
Arabic  ^ tXil  showed  a  tendency  to  shift,  according  to  Reckendorf.  And 
though  we  might  demur  with  reference  to  the  Arabic  for  the  reason  that 
^jJl  is  declinable,  there  is  nothing  that  could  have  checked  TCN  in  a 

^'  V  -: 

similar  way,  since  it  is  invariable  for  gender,  number,  or  case.  Konig  is, 
therefore,  undoubtedly  right  when  he  says  that,  e.g.,  iSl  •  •  •  •  Tl2Ji< 
might  have  been  conceived  relatively  just  as  well  as  the  English  expression, 
"The  age  which  we  live  tn."'  What  is  this  "in"  but  a  kind  of  retrospective 
giving  the  "which"  its  necessary  definition  and  clearness?  In  view  of  all 
this  I  contend  that  the  demonstrative  theory  of  the  syntax  of  112Ji^  cannot 
be  successfully  maintained,  even  if  the  premise  of  the  demonstrative  origin 
of  the  particle  be  granted. 

ADDENDUM 

A  passage  that  also  deserves  notice  as  illustrating  the  indefinite  non- 
demonstrative  character  of  "iTIJS  is  Gen.  30:29,  "And  he  said  unto  him  [ri^"'' 

^^l^5  T^Zy'2  rrr\  ^tijn  nsti  ^^nin:^'  ^l2i^5  nsi],  Thou  knowest  how  i 

served  thee  and  how  thy  cattle  have  fared  with  me"  (R.V.).  In  neither  of 
these  clauses  will  the  demonstrative  theory  apply.  To  take  the  first  ri5< 
"I'JJX  as  object  of  ri2?"I'',  "Thou  knowest  that,"  leaves  the  ^TTlinS'  destitute 
of  meaning  and  destroys  all  connection.  But  perhaps  "lllJik  is  here  a 
conjunction:  "Thou  knowest  that  I  served  thee."  This  is  self-evident  and 
devoid  of  force.  We  are  then  shut  up  to  the  rendering  "Thou  knowest  what 
I  served  thee,"  the  entire  clause  being  the  object  of  pyi"^ .  The  "1123 ISl  HK 
is  here  used  as  a  cognate  accusative  depending  on  ^TTlin"  •"  In  the 
second  clause,  112Ji<  introduces  what  in  modern  terminology  is  called  an 
indirect  question:  "Thou  knowest  what  thy  cattle  have  become  [this  is  the 
force  of  TTT\\  with  me."  A  moment's  reflection  will  again  show  the  impos- 
sibility of  making  "illJS   PlS;  depend  on  Fiyi'' . 

1  Lehrgeb..  Ill,  §  62. 

2  Some  supply  "^nnhr  before  mCS ,  after  Syr.,  but  this  is  not  required. 


I 


The  Hebrew  Particle  I^JS  71 


PART  II 

THE    CONJUNCTIONAL   USE    OF    ^tlJU^   AND    ITS    COMPOUNDS 
a)    n-lljjj^   USED   ALONE 

101.  To  explain  the  conjunctional  use  of  n^J< ,  we  cannot  have 
recourse  to  the  analogy  of  Semitic  demonstratives  such  as  sa, 
, ,  ^"n ,  which,  it  is  well  known,  have,  to  a  certain  extent,  assumed 
the  functions  of  a  conjunction.  Though  the  usage  in  both  cases 
is  within  certain  limits  naturally  the  same,  the  process  of  develop- 
ment resulting  in  such  usage  is  wholly  different.  With  regard  to 
the  demonstratives,  we  have  the  familiar  phenomenon,  already 
pointed  out,  that  the  original  pronoun  was  employed  to  introduce 
the  subordinate  clause.  In  the  case  of  ^125i<,  however,  the  matter 
is  different.  The  origin  of  its  conjunctional  use  is  to  be  sought  in 
its  vague  and  indeterminate  character  as  a  medium  of  relation.  As 
such  it  could  be  employed  indifferently  to  connect  a  sentence  with 
a  single  word  (antecedent)  or  with  another  sentence.  Hence  also  the 
great  variety  of  uses  which  it  exhibits.  No  Semitic  demonstrative 
that  has  passed  into  a  conjunction  covers  as  large  a  territory  as  does 
the  Hebrew  particle  TOS  .  Thus  the  Assyrian  s  a  never  expresses 
purpose,  result,  condition,  or  time  (unless  a  time-designation  has 
preceded) .  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Aramaic  "''^ ,  though 
this  occurs  in  final  clauses  when  the  latter  are  at  the  same  time  the 
object  of  the  main  verb.  The  nearest  approach  to  the  extensive 
conjunctional  use  of  ^'©^^i  is  found  in  the  Syriac  ? ,  though  it,  too,  is 
not  as  far-reaching  as  ^^^ .  Expressed  in  our  grammatical  cate- 
gories, ^IZJSl  may  introduce  subject,  object,  causal,  final,  consecutive, 
conditional,  explicative,  concessive,  temporal, ^  and  modal  clauses. 
It  may  also  introduce  a  direct  quotation.  It  need  hardly  be  added 
that  it  never  occurred  to  the  Hebrew  consciousness  to  make  any 

I  Somewhat  uncertain  (when  no  time-designation  precedes). 


72  Caul  Ciahnsslk 

such  grammatical  classifications  as  the  above  in  the  conjunctional 
use  of  "-S  .  The  latter  never  acciuired  any  specific  meaning  as 
either  a  causal,  conditional,  or  any  other  conjuiiction.  It  was 
never  anythin{>;  more  than  a  fj;eneral  connective,  the  exact  logical 
relation  between  the  main  and  dependent  clauses  being  instinctively 
felt  in  the  living  languag(\ 

102.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  grammarians  and  inter- 
preters differ  so  widely  in  many  cases  in  dealing  with  ^^5<  .  Indeed, 
in  not  a  few  instances,  it  seems  impossible  to  decide  just  what 
modern  conjunction  deserves  the  preference  in  rendering  the  con- 
junctional "uJS .  In  the  treatment  of  this  elusive  particle  there 
will  always  be  an  element  of  uncertainty  and  hence  diversity  of 
opinion.  Upon  the  whole,  1  am  inclined  to  think  that  a  conjunctional 
use  has  been  assumed  in  more  cases  than  is  necessary.  This  applies 
in  jxirticular  to  the  causal  use. 

"TCJ^  in  Subject  Clauses^ 

103.  "^uJS  may  introduce  a  subject  clause.  This  usage  occurs 
with  growing  frequency  in  the  later  books.  It  is  especially  common 
in  Koheleth.  The  following  passages  occur:  Num.  9:20,  125^1 
•3"i:2r;  by  "^ECp  n^'r  ■:yr;  rrn'_  'ntlJSt,  "and  it  happened  that 
the  cloud  was  a  few  days  upon  the  sanctuary"  (the  same  con- 
struction appears  in  the  next  verse);  II  Sam.  14:15,  ^'OS  nri^l 
■nsn,  "and  now  it  is  that  I  am  come";  II  Kings  20:20',  "The 
rest  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah  ....  [nj'^nn  H'^ry  "ilflSil],  and  that 
he  made  the  pool"  (not  quomodo  fecerit  according  to  the  Vulg., 
emphasizing  the  modal  idea;  the  mere  statement  of  the  fact  is  all 
that  the  context  demands);  I  Kings  14:28,  "The  rest  of  the  acts 
of  Jeroboam  [ni^n"b  n-^ri-n5<*l  ptfl^lTiS  n^lIJn  ^^Sll],  and 
that  he  restored  Damascus  and  Hamath  unto  Judah"  (Vulg.: 
Quomodo  restituit);  Koh.  3:22,  DIXH  HT^iZJ^  ITIJ^^^  nit:  --^J; , 
"nothing  is  better  than  that  a  man  rejoice"  (cf.  II  Sam.  18:3, 
3  Zii:  ;  also  Ps.  119:71;  Ruth  2:22);  Koh.  5:4,  ^^^5  nii: 
Drin  Sbl  ^i'lrnS";  n'ln-sb,  "it  is  better  that  thou  shouldst  not 
vow,"  etc.;  Koh.  7:18,  Hn  THSn  TllJK  QlD  ,  "it  is  good  that  thou 
shouldst  seize  hold  of  thiV';   Esther  6:2,  Tiin  n^^^^:  n^nS  X^^n 

»  Clauses  implying  purpose  are  not  Included  under  this  head. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  TIIJi<  73 

"by  ^?^.T9'  "and  it  was  found  written  that  Mordecai  had  told," 
etc.;  Neh.  2:10,  DIN  Sn  ^TlJs:  nblj  TOn  DHb  3?T^ ,  "and  it 
displeased  them  greatly  that  a  man  had  come"  (cf.  Isa.  59:15, 
'3  3?-^!!l);  Zech.  8:20,  Dr;y  :iN2;  niTS;  iv ,  "it  shall  yet  be  that 
nations  will  come."  As  to  II  Sam.  14:26,  n5:r  nirx  ....  HTl), 
the  lies  probablj'^  introduces  a  temporal  clause  (cf.  Driver,  Notes 
on  Samuel;  Gesenius-Kautzsch  also  refers  to  Jer.  28:9  as  containing 
an  instance  of  a  Subjektsatz  introduced  by  I'^IJN ,  but  this  is  by  no 
means  certain;  the  clause  maybe  simply  attributive) ;  Zech.  8:23, 
"Thus  says  Jahwe  Zebaoth,  In  those  days  [^p^H^  ni^S]  it  shall 
be  that  .  .  .  ."  Nowack  regards  1125i<  as  introducing  direct  dis- 
course.    But  in  this  case  it  would  occupy  a  wrong  position. 

"loJN  in  Object  Clauses 

104.  "''OSi  is  frequently  employed  to  introduce  object  clauses. 
When  thus  used,  it  is  often  preceded  by  the  accusative  sign  in5< . 
Naturally,  this  usage  is  common  after  verba  dicendi  and  sentiendi 
or  equivalent  expressions. 

105.  A.  Depending  on  verba  dicendi,  IlliSl  occurs  after: 

a)  n'ninn,  "to  confess":  cf.  Lev.  5:5,  ^^D"  IIIJS  H^lpr' > 
"he  confesses  that  he  has  sinned";  Lev.  26:40,  ~Sl1  ....  ^"^inni 
"■^pS  "'ay  ^Dbri""!'!^^ ,  "and  they  confess  ....  that  they  walk 
contrary  to  me." 

6)  n:aN,  "to  say":  cf.  Josh.  4:7,  ^n")3?  ^m  Dnb  DFll^J?;'! , 
"And  ye  shall  say  that,"  etc.  O'^Vi  may  possibly  be  the  ^12JN 
recitativnm) . 

c)  After  13:,  "to  make  known":  cf.  Josh.  9:24,  ^^"j^^b  13" 
TT\Tr  njl^  "^llJi^  nS ,  "it  was  made  known  unto  thy  servants  that 
Jahwe  commanded";  here,  according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom, 
the  passive  IBH  takes  an  object  clause,  the  verb  being  used  in  an 
impersonal  sense  when  the  agent  is  indefinite  (cf.  the  German  man, 
French  on,  or  the  EngUsh  "they"  used  as  an  indefinite  subject); 
I  Kings  19:1,  D^N^^rbj-n^i:  rP"  ^'i:S-b5  nsn  .  .  .  .  IS'll,  "and 
he  [Ahab]  made  known  that  he  [Elijah]  had  slain  all  the  prophets" 
("bj  riSl  before  I'lZJy*  is  probably  a  repetition  from  the  preceding, 
and  may  be  eliminated;  but  see  Esther  5:11);  Esther  3:4,  TSri  ^3 
^T\XT  J5^n-ni23N  nnb  ,  "for  he  had  told  them  that  he  was  a  Jew." 


74  Carl  Gaenssle 

d)  After  ISC,  "to  rohite":  of.  II  Kings  8:5,  ^SC"^  N^H  ^m 
r^riTS  ri"r;n"'^"rSl  rS  ^^^r'-  "and  it  came  to  pass  while  he 
was  telling  the  king  that  he  had  restored  the  dead  to  life";  Esther 
o:ll.  D'^^irn  by  ixis:  TiX  nsin  nnb  "BC';1,  "and  he  related 
unto  them  ....  that  he  had  exalted  him  above  the  princes." 

e)  After  D'")SC  nbllj ,  "to  send  letters":  cf.  Esther  8:11,  nb^^l 
D""l?in'^b  Ti^'BTj  'in:  nm  ....  D^^SC,  "And  he  sent  letters  [i.e., 
made  known  by  letters]  that  the  king  had  granted  to  the  Jews,"  etc. 

106.  B.  Depending  on  verba  sentiendi,  ^"^^  occurs  after: 
a)  3?!^,  "to  know":  cf.  Exod.  11:7,  xbs:  ^m  'yiyiT)  ]T2b 
bSi'^'C  "2^  D'^''^''?  "^  mn^ ,  "in  order  that  you  may  know  that 
Jahwe  distinguishes  l)etween  the  Egyptians  and  Israel";  Deut. 
29:15,  ^""^ny  ^TIJ5<  ni<'1  .  .  .  .  ^Dnip^-nm  n«  QFiyr,  "Ye  know 
that  we  dwelt  ....  and  that  we  passed  through";  II  Sam.  11:20, 
n'iir-  brZ  ^^""^'J:JS:  nx  Dnyr  Sbn,  "did  ye  not  know  that 
they  would  shoot  from  the  wall'?"';  Ezek.  20:26,  rj'r  niijs  "jy-jb 
nTT  ""wS;  I'uJS  ,  "that  they  may  know  that  I  am  Jahwe";  Job  9:5, 
Dirsn  TuJX  ^yT  J^bl ,  "and  they  know  not  that  he  overturns 
them";  Koh.  7:22,  'O^^ns  nbbp  ni<-DSi  ^^^  ^li)  ^T ,  "thy 
heart  knows  that  thou  likewise  hast  cursed  others";    Koh.  8:12, 

D-n'bss-;  'X^ib  nii:  n^n^.  "i-cs  ^:«  ^I^'D^  ^s,  "Yet  surely  i 

know  that  it  shall  be  well  with)  them  that  fear  God";  Esther  4:11, 

.  .  .  .  ^T25wS!  Q7T  ....  "12y-b:p,  "All  the  servants  of  ...  . 
know  that  .  .  .  .";  II  Chron.  2:7,  n7-ir  Tj^iny  TlIJS  WT  "ZNi , 
"I  know  that  thy  servants  know." 

6)  nS-;,  "to  see":  cf.  I  Sam.  18:15,  X^H  nT2Ji<  b^Sp  Sn^l 
15<'-  b"Z'X'2  ,  "and  Saul  saw  that  he  was  very  successful";  I  Sam. 
24:11,  ^-hl  [urn]  T-i^rr  ^jZnrTlZJS;  nSS  ^j^ry  ^U^-^,  "thine  eyes 
have  seen  that  Jahwe  delivered  thee  into  my  hand";  Deut.  1:31, 
n^rr  ?;Stir:  ^IlilJ^  n^J^*;!  nirs  ^Sl^an^,  "and  in  the  wilderness 
where  thou  hast  seen  that  Jahwe  bare  thee." 

c)  r^TIJ,  "to  hear":  cf.  Josh.  2:10,  "iS^niH  nilJS;  ni<  W'Q^ 
"^C'D";  ■'■^TlN;  mn"' ,  "we  heard  that  Jahwe  dried  up  the  waters 
of  the  Red  Sea";  Josh.  5:1,  '^^if._  ns;  .  .  .  .  "jb'^-b^  yb^3  ^nn 
'"I!*"  ""r'^^  '^"'r'^" '  "And  it  came  to  pass  when  all  the  kings 
of  ...  .  heard  that  Jahwe  dried  up  the  waters  of  the  Jordan"; 
I  Sam.  2:22,  D^^SnTiJ;  "^3^':  "^m  ni<1  .  .  .  .  T2^) ,  "and 
heard  that  they  lay  with  the  women." 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^U5J^  75 

d)  ^jT,  "to  remember":  cf.  II  Kings  20:3,  ^'iJN  nS;  Xj'^jT 
r'^5^^  ^^.2Sb  ^riSbnrn ,  "remember  that  I  walked  before  3'ou  in 
integrity";'  cf.  Isa.  38:3. 

e)  ru^,  "to  forget":  Deut.  9:7,  riS'4pn-"ll2J5<  ns;  H^'C^P.  bi< 
mrr'TiS ,  "do  not  forget  that  thou  hast  provoked  Jahwe." 

/)  nsiian,  "sign":  of.  I  Kings  13:3,  "^n^.  ^123^1  nsisri  -T 

nilT' ,  "this  is  a  sign  that  Jahwe  has  spoken." 

g)  nisn,  "sign":  cf.  Isa.  38:7,  "TTr  ^m  ....  nii^n  r(l:  HT 
rt^rr  ,  "this  is  a  sign  unto  you  that  Jahwe  shall  do,"  etc. 

"1123 5<  in  Causal  Clauses 

107.  ^"^^  may  introduce  clauses  expressing  the  cause  of  some 
effect,  the  reason  or  explanation  of  some  fact,  the  ground  of  an 
exhortation,  the  motive  or  justification  of  some  mental  affection,  the 
proof  of  an  assertion,  and  the  like:  Josh.  4:23,  "On  drj^  land  Israel 
crossed  the  Jordan  ['Q'^^i  ^"r"^^  °?^rT-^  "1!^^  ^^nin  ^3N], 
because  Jahwe  your  God  dried  up  the  waters  of  the  Jordan";  J 
Kings  8:33,  "when  thy  people  Israel  are  defeated  by  the  enemy 
[T^b'^Xpr"'  "^^i^],  because  they  have  sinned  against  thee"  (cf. 
II  Chron!  6:24,  ^3);  I  Kings  15:5,  "For  David's  sake  did  Jahwe, 
his  God,  give  him  a  lamp  in  Jerusalem  [^ipj^nTiyt  iTt  Tiwy'  nilJS], 
because  David  did  that  which  was  right"  (for  the  sake  of  greater 
emphasis  the  causal  sentence  precedes  in  Koh.  8:11,  ""'SJ^  "^"iTS 
"nb  xb-2  "3-by  n'^r'2  ny;-  ri'J:T2  nr-ns  niz:?D,  "because  sen- 
tence is  not  executed  speedily  against  an  evil  work,  therefore  the 
heart,"  etc.;  Koh.  8:12,  "ib  ^""X'^^  nyf^  y^_  HlT^"  nt2n  nds , 
"because  a  sinner  does  evil  a  hundred  times  and  prolongs  [his 
days],"  etc.  [a  resumption  and  amplification  of  the  idea  in  11a]); 
Hab.  3:16,  "I  heard  and  my  body  trembled  ....  [HTj^  ^^^^ 
TT'^  D'i^b],  because  I  must  wait  for  the  day  of  trouble"  (so  if  the 
text  is  retained);  Gen.  31:49,  "Therefore  was  the  name  of  it  called 
....  Mizpah  [?j^"n^  ^j-3  Hin^  r;i"  ^'^IS;  -^m],  for  he  said, 
Jahwe  watch  between  me  and  thee"  (giving  the  reason  for  the 
name);  Deut.  3:24,  "Thou  hast  begun  to  show  thy  greatness  and 
thy  strong  hand  [^"''^r^S  TiW'J-'_  "^^^  "f"^^?^  □'■^^SS  bS'rj  nT::^], 
for  what  god  is  there  in  heaven  or  on  earth  who  does  accord- 
ing to  thy  works"  (the  unrivaled  power  of  Jahwe  being  the 
natural  reason  for  his  mighty  acts);    I  Sam.   15:15,  "They  have 


76  Carl  Gaknssle 

hroujiht  tlu-ni  from  tho  Aiualckites  pp"7J  by  Qy-  b'2r\  nilis 
"Siin]  for  las  tlu>  speaker  adds  by  way  of  explanation]  the  people 
spared  the  best  of  the  sheep";  I  Sam.  2:23,  "Why  do  you  do  these 
thin.iis  [U^'^1  Dr";^n7-nS  Tit  "^SbS  ^^^},  for  I  hear  of  your  evil 
dealinjis"  (so  if  the  text  is  retained);  II  Kings  12:3,  "And 
Jehoash  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  Jahwe  all  his  days 
p'-'i-"  ^rr^^i  -\t^},  for  Jehoiada  had  taught  him"  (R.V.,  "all 
his  days  wherein"  is  wrong;  "all  his  days"  necessarily  means 
all  his  life;  therefore  a  restrictive  relative  clause  is  impossible); 
Zech.  1:15,  "I  am  greatly  displeased  with  the  nations  that  are  at 
ease  [n^^-^h  ^'^•^'J  n'Br}')  "OTZ  "Fli^i:  ■'w^  ^TIJS],  for  I  was  but  a 
little  angry,  but  they  helped  for  evil"  (aggravated  the  evil);  Josh. 
22:31,  "This  day  we  know  that  Jahwe  is  in  our  midst  [i<b  ^^S 
n-T"  by^n  nin''^  UribTZ],  because  [inasmuch  as]  you  have  not 
committed  this  transgression  against  Jahwe";  in  this  case  the 
TuJ^^- clause  contains  the  proof  or  evidence  of  the  preceding  assertion 
(cf.  Luke  7:47,  "Her  sins,  which  are  many,  are  forgiven,  for  she 
loved  much);  I  Sam.  26:23,  "And  Jahwe  will  render  unto  everyone 
his  righteousness  and  faithfulness  ["'1^^  ....  niJl"'  TjjHD  "I'OS 
mn^  "^'^'^^  ^T  nb'^b  ^n^ni<  ^b)],  inasmuch  as  Jahwe  delivered 
thee  into  my  hand  and  I  was  unwilling  to  put  forth  my  hand 
against  the  anointed  of  Jahwe";  Isa.  19:24-25,  "In  that  day 
Israel  shall  be  the  third  to  Assyria  and  Egypt,  a  blessing  in  the 
midst  of  the  earth  [Hin^  iD^l  ^^^]>  forasmuch  as  Jahwe  has 
blessed  him";  II  Sam.  14:22,  "Thy  servant  knoweth  that  I  have 
found  favor  in  thy  sight  ....  [i"nn?  "^ni-nS;  T^b^H  nif^  ^^^}, 
inasmuch  as  the  king  hatli  fulfilled  the  request  of  his  servant"; 
Hos.  14:4,  "We  shall  not  say  any  more  to  the  work  of  our  hands, 
'Our  gods'  [Din^  Onn*;  ?jn  ^IIJS],  for  in  thee  the  fatherless  shall 
find  mercy";  this  clause  differs  slightly  from  those  immediately 
preceding  in  that  it  expresses  not  a  fact  as  such,  but  the  certainty 
of  a  fact  as  the  ground  of  the  foregoing  assertion;  Koh.  4:9,  "Two 
are  better  than  one  pii:  ^jTT  Dnb  TIJ";  ^^i<\,  inasmuch  as  they 
have  good  reward";  Koh.  6:12,  "For  who  knows  what  is  good  for 
man  in  his  life  ....  which  he  spends  as  a  shadow  [T'i»^"''"2  TCJS 
VTt5  rrfr  ri-  Q"5<b],  for  who  shall  tell  a  man  what  shall  be 
after   him?";  if  we   change   the   interrogative   rhetorical   form   of 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "Iiii^  77 

the  verse  into  the  positive,  it  will  appear  that  '^'I23i<  may  also  in  this 
case  be  rendered  by  "inasmuch  as"  or  "seeing  that,"  or  some 
equivalent  expression;  I  Sam.  20:42,  "Go  in  peace  [^SS'ZtlJ]  "i^i<], 
forasmuch  as  we  have  sworn"  ("seeing  that,"  "in  view  of  the  fact 
that,"  expressing  the  ground  for  the  preceding  exhortation);  Zech. 
11:2,  "Wail,  O  cypress,  for  the  cedar  is  fallen  [^^jlIJ  Dn^':ii<  ^12355], 
the  mighty  ones  are  destroj-ed";  Neh.  2:3,  "Why  should  not  my 
countenance  be  sad  [HZ";-  T'^-.^  ""i^^P"!^"?^  ^7^7  '^^^],  seeing 
that  the  city,  the  place  of  my  fathers'  sepulchres,  Hes  waste" 
("I'lIJS  introducing  at  once  the  explanation  and  justification  for  the 
sadness);   Job.  34:27  (if  text  is  correct). 

Causal  Relative  Clauses 

108.  This  classification  has,  so  far  as  I  know,  not  been  made  in 
any  grammatical  treatise  in  Hebrew.  This  is  surprising.  The 
facts  certainly  warrant  a  classification  of  this  kind.  There  are  two 
classes  of  sentences  expressive  of  cause  or  reason  that  are  usually 
thrown  together,  whereas  they  should  be  kept  apart.  The  one 
embraces  the  purely  causal  clauses  (cf.  the  preceding  paragraphs), 
and  the  other  all  such  relative  clauses  as,  besides  their  relative  func- 
tion, imply  a  reason  or  cause.  It  will  not  do  to  put  into  one  class 
sentences  of  the  following  types:  I  Sam.  15:15,  "And  Saul  said, 
they  have  brought  them  from  the  Amalekites;  for  i"^"^^]  the  people 
spared  the  best  of  the  sheep,"  etc.;  and  I  Sam.  26:16,  ".  .  .  . 
Ye  are  sons  of  death  that  [1^^<]  have  not  kept  watch  over  your 
lord,  Jahwe's  anointed."  So  Gesenius,  Konig,  Davidson,  and  other 
grammars.  In  the  first  of  these  examples  the  ''"iIJ^^ -clause  is,  of 
course,  purely  conjunctional;  but  in  the  second  the  "^'^X  easily 
and  naturally  refers  to  "sons  of  death"  as  antecedent,  and  is  there- 
fore to  be  taken  as  introducing  a  relative  clause.  It  will  also  be 
noticed  that  even  the  English  (and  the  German)  idiom  will  admit  the 
use  of  a  causal  relative  clause  in  this  case.  To  be  sure,  the  relative 
form  cannot  in  all  cases  be  adopted  to  render  the  Hebrew  causal 
relative,  for  the  reason  that  English  (or  German)  does  not  as  a  rule 
express  cause  or  reason  in  a  relative  clause.  Consequently,  the 
distinction  between  these  two  classes  of  sentences  will  sometimes 
disappear  in  translation,  so  far  as  the  form  is  concerned.     But  even 


78  Carl  CIaenssle 

aftor  due  allowuncc  for  this  is  iiKulo,  n  little  oxaniinatioii  of  transla- 
tions antl  commentaries  will  show  that  much  needless  confusion  and 
inconsistency  has  arisen  from  the  promiscuous  treatment  of  these 
two  types  of  sentence.  Thus  in  the  sentence  last  quoted  Nowack 
correctly  translates:  "Ihr  seid  Kinder  des  Todes,  die  ihr  nicht 
Acht  gehabt  habt,"  etc.;  Kautzsch:  "dass  ihr  nicht";  R.V. : 
"Because";  Vulg. :  qtda  non  custodistis;  LXX:  ol  (j)v\a<7o-ouT€s 
(omitting  the  negation).  11  Sam.  2:5,  "Blessed  be  ye  of  Jahwe  pITS 
riTn  "Crn  Dri''"j;3'']";  Nowack  again:  "die  ihr";  Kautzsch  also:  "die 
ihr"  (but  why  not  dass  ihr,  as  in  the  previous  example?);  R.V. : 
"that  ye";  Vulg.:  qui  fecistis  misericordiam  hanc  (why  not  quia 
as  in  the  previous  example?);  LXX:  on  iirotrjaaTe  to  eXeos  tovto. 
And  so  in  general,  one  translator  using  a  conjunction,  the  other  a 
relative  pronoun,  in  cases  where  the  latter  could  be  employed.  I 
think  we  may  set  it  clown  as  a  safe  rule  that  when  IliiSt ,  as  already 
remarked,  has  an  antecedent  to  which  it  can  easily  refer,  the  relative 
construction  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  conjunctional.  The  form  being 
identical  with  that  of  the  ordinary  relative  clause,  it  is  not  to  be 
assumed  that  such  clauses  were  conceived  in  other  than  a  relative 
sense  by  the  He})rew  language.  The  implication  of  the  additional 
idea  of  cause  or  reason  was  intuitively  and  immediately  felt. 
Naturally,  however,  cases  will  occur  where  it  seems  impossible  to 
decide  positively  in  favor  of  the  one  or  the  other  class  of  sentence. 

109.  The  causal  relative  clause  is  quite  common:  Gen.  24:27, 
"And  he  said.  Blessed  be  Jahwe,  the  God  of  my  master  Abraham 
["T^C"  2T^"Xb  "l"l23^^],  who  [implying  reason]  has  not  forsaken 
his  kindness,"  etc.;  cf.  the  Latin:  0  fortunate  adulescens,  qui 
Homerum  praeconem  tuae  virtutis  inveneris;  in  this  case,  the  Revised 
Version  retains  the  relative  construction,  "who  hath  not  forsaken," 
while  in  an  exactly  parallel  case,  II  Sam.  2:5,  it  employs  the  con- 
junction "that,"  because  the  verb  in  the  relative  clause  is  in  the 
second  person;  Gen.  24:48,  "And  I  .  .  .  .  blessed  Jahwe,  the  God 
of  my  master  Abraham  [H'JS  '^"'"^  ^'^L'r'*?  ^^^],  who  [implying 
reason]  had  led  me  in  the  right  way";  Gen.  30:18,  "And  Leah  said, 
God  has  given  me  my  hire  [''^"^5b  ^Iirs^  T'^'^  "''^J^],  who  have 
given  my  maid  to  my  husband";  the  relative  in  this  case  attaches 
to  the  suffix  in  "my  hire";   in  translation,  the  English  idiom  prefers 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^llJi^  79 

a  causal  conjunction,  "because,"  while  the  German,  admitting  the 
insertion  of  the  personal  pronoun  I  into  the  clause,  can  easily  employ 
the  relative  construction:  ''Die  ich  gegeben  habe,"  quae  dederiyn; 
Gen.  34:13,  "And  the  sons  of  Jacob  answered  Shechem  and  Hamor 
with  guile  and  spoke  [with  guile]  [nri  rij|;  i^^Qp  ^^^l  who  had 
defiled  Dinah";  Gen.  34:27,  "The  sons  of  Jacob  came  upon  the 
slain  and  plundered  the  city  [DniHi^  ^IX^ai:  ^^^],  who  had 
defiled  their  sister";  Gen.  42:21,  ""We  are  guilty  [^rj^'i  TlflJ^ 
illJSD  rii^],  who  [=in  that  we]  saw  the  anguish  of  his  soul" 
(German:  "die  wir  gesehen  haben");  Exod.  5:21,  "Let  Jahwe  look 
upon  you  and  judge  [^Dn^-ny;  DntZJXnn  n^S],  that  have  made 
our  savor  to  be  abhorred";  Exod.  18:10,  "Blessed  be  Jahwe  ptliyt 
D';"i:2p  T7p  DpnS  b"Sn],  who  has  delivered  you  out  of  the  hand 
of  Egypt";  here  again,  though  plainly  causal,  the  R.V.  retains  the 
relative  construction,  because  the  subject  of  the  clause  is  in  the 
third  person,  as  in  the  first  passage  cited  above;  Num.  5:3,  "That 
they  defile  not  the  camp  [Q^inn  -p-iT'  "pbS  nilJX],  in  the  midst 
of  which  I  dwell";  Deut.  4:19,  "Lest  thou  be  drawn  away  and 
worship  them  [the  host  of  heaven]  [Dni<  ^^llbSl  r^TT  pbn  n^S 
D^^yn  bbb]  which  Jahwe  thy  God  has  allotted  unto  all  the  peoples"; 
Deut.  34:10,  "And  there  has  not  arisen  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like 
unto  Moses  [D':5"bi<  D^D3  niH^  I^T  miJNl],  whom  Jahwe  knew 
face  to  face";  Josh.  5:6,  "until  all  the  nation,  the  men  of  war 
....  were  consumed  [HirT'  bipn  ^^^pilj-xb  n^X],  who  did  not 
obey  the  voice  of  Jahwe  ";  I  Sam.  26: 16,  "  Sons  of  death  are  you 
[nrailSl-by  DnT^lIJ  J<b  n^X],  who  have  not  kept  watch  over 
your  lord";  II  Sam.  2:5,  "Blessed  be  you  of  Jahwe  [Dn^TTy  TO^^ 
n-T!l  ICnn],  who  have  done  this  kindness";  II  Sam.  2:6;  "I 
will  requite  you  this  kindness  [n-TJl  ^H'lH  Dri"'ir3'  II^N!],  who 
have  done  this  thing";  II  Sam.  6:20,  "How  honorably  did  David 
conduct  himself  to-day  ["^^^^b  DVn  nbrO  ^tlJS;],  who  uncovered 
himself  before  the  eyes  [of  the  handmaids  of  his  servants]";  the 
scorn  expressed  in  the  exclamatory  sentence  is  substantiated  by  the 
relative  clause,  the  sense  being  that  the  king  disgraced  himself, 
since  he  uncovered  himself,  etc.  (Vulg. :  discooperiens  se,  expressing 
reason) ;  I  Kings  3 :  19,  "And  the  son  of  this  woman  died  in  the  night 
[Vb;^  i^^?^  "^''^^l";  it  is,  perhaps,  impossible  to  decide  here  between 


80  Carl  Gaenssle 

tlic  rehitivo  and  conjunctional  constructions,  thougii  1  prefer  the 
former;  assuming  the  chiuse  to  l)c  relative,  there  is  still  some  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  antecedent;  it  may  be  "son"  or  "woman";  in 
the  one  case,  the  translation  would  run,  "upon  whom  [Vb^'  ■  •  •  •  ■'llJSl] 
she  lay,"  in  the  other,  "who  lay  upon  him";  at  all  events,  the  clause 
expresses  cause;  nor  is  there  any  valid  reason  against  its  being  a 
relative  clause;    I  Kings  8:30,  "Render  unto  every  one  according 

to  all  his  ways  ["nnb-ns  n^T  nns  ^3  innb-nb5  :?-in  '^w], 

who  knowest  his  heart;  for  thou  alone  knowest  the  heart  [of  all  the 
children  of  men]";  this  is  to  my  mind  the  only  correct  rendering 
of  the  clause;  R.V.:  "whose  heart  thou  knowest"  would  make  the 
clause  rather  restrictive,  which  is  contrary  to  the  sense,  since  Jahwe, 
of  course,  knows  all  hearts;  Kautzsch,  Kittel,  Keil:  "Wie  du  sein 
Herz  kennst"  involves  a  useless  redundancy,  since  the  same  idea  is 
already  expressed  in  "according  to  his  ways";  the  same  objection 
applies  to  the  LXX  and  Vulg. :  Ka6d)s  av  yvuis  ttjp  Kapdlav  avrov, 
sicut  videris  cor  eius;  it  is  simply  a  causal  relative  clause  connecting 
with  "thou"  implied  in  the  imperative  "render";  I  Kings  8:23-24, 
"O  Jahwe  ....  there  is  no  God  hke  thee  in  heaven  above  and  on 
earth  beneath  ....  [Fl-^ni  n'^S  nx  ^n^5  111  ^j-nn^b  rr\'2^  miJX 
15],  who  hast  kept  unto  thy  servant  David  that  which  thou  didst 
promise  him";  here  versions  and  commentaries  generally  adopt  the 
relative  construction,  though  the  sentence  is  exactly  the  same  as 
others  where  the  "^^i^  is  treated  as  a  conjunction;  I  Kings  15:13, 
"And  Also  Maacah,  his  mother,  he  removed  from  being  queen 
[rPupti^  r^bs'^  nriir?  '^'ON;],  who  had  made  an  abominable  image 
unto  Ashera";  II  Kings  17:4,  "And  the  king  of  Assyria  found 
treason  in  Hosea  [n-;^:;:^  ^^2  SiC'bs  D-psb/J  nbllj  ^t^],  who 
had  sent  messengers  to  So  king  of  Egypt";  Isa.  30:10,  "For  it  is 
a  rebellious  people,  lying  children  [vs.  9]  .  .  .  .  [Q'^5"ib  ^^"2X  "illii^ 
^S"^r  sb],  that  say  to  the  seers,  See  not";  Isa.  49:7,  "Kings  shall 
see  and  rise,  princes  and  they  shall  worship  because  of  Jahwe  ["i125< 
■■I«:],  who  is  faithful";  Jer.  5:22,  "Will  ye  not  fear  me  [^ri-^ir  1T2JS 
D|'^  tJ^^r*  bir],  who  have  placed  the  sand  as  a  boundary  to  the 
sea?";  even  in  English  we  here  distinctly  feel  that  the  relative  clause 
implies  a  reason;  Jer.  13:25,  "This  is  thy  lot,  the  portion  measured 
unto  thee  from  me,  saith  Jahwe  [^0"^^  ^'j?''^  ""V?^];  who  hast  for- 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "I123&<  81 

gotten  me";  Jer.  16:13,  "I  will  hurl  you  from  this  land  ....  and 
there  you  shall  serve  other  gods  [Hrin  udb  "PSi  ^b  "illiX],  who 
shall  show  you  no  favor";  the  fact  that  1123^|!  is  here  very  far  re- 
moved from  the  antecedent  in  "'ITlbpri  ("I  will  hurl")  is  no  decisive 
objection  against  the  relative  construction,  though  "ITIJS!  may  in  this 
instance  be  a  conjunction;  there  are,  as  remarked,  some  cases  where 
it  is  impossible  to  pronounce  definitely  as  to  the  function  of  the 
particle;  Jer.  20:17,  "Let  him  hear  a  cry  of  mourning  and  an  alarm 
at  noonday  [D"'^'-2  "'3111117:3  U<b  ^'OS],  who  slew  me  not  from  the 
womb"  (Vulg.:  Qui  non  me  interfecit) ;  Ezek.  6:9,  "And  your 
escaped  ones  shall  remember  me  among  the  nations  ....  [Ilp^l 
riDTTJl  D3b"D5<  "riillllljj],  whose  [referring  to  those  that  escape] 
lewd  heart  I  shall  break";  there  is  no  reason  here  for  canceling  IIIJX 
(SBOT);  possibly  "ri'^^TIJ  should  take  the  place  of  the  form  in 
the  text;  Ezek.  6:11,  "Smite  with  thy  hand  and  stamp  with  thy  foot 
and  cry,  Alas!  because  of  the  abominations  of  the  house  of  Israel 
[ibs";  ....  Znrpl  nUJS],  which  shall  fall  by  the  sword  ....  "; 
here  again  there  is  no  reason  whatever  for  the  excision  of  lip^J!  ; 
we  have  here  simply  a  relative  clause  containing  the  ground  for 
the  preceding  exhortation;  Ezek.  14:5,  "In  order  to  seize  Israel  by 
the  heart  ["'b^"^  ^^TD  "ITIJS!],  which  has  turned  away  from  me"; 
Ezek.  16:52,  "Thou  also,  bear  thy  own  shame  [PbbE  "lt25i< 
T^riiriJ^b],  who  hast  given  judgment  for  thy  sister";  Ezek.  39:29, 
"I  shall  hot  hide  my  face  from  them  any  more  ["^Fl^SlIJ  "I'Upi^ 
bSl"!^"'  ri"'^'b;?  "^niiTi^],  who  have  [shall  have]  poured  out  my  spirit 
upon  the  house  of  Israel";  overlooking  the  real  nature  of  this  rela- 
tive clause  as  implying  a  reason.  Toy,  Cornill,  Gratz,  and  others 
suggest  tips;  "j:?^  as  a  necessary  emendation,  because  the  LXX 
reads  avd'  ov  ;  but  it  will  be  seen  that  the  clause,  as  it  stands,  is 
perfectly  regular,  requiring  no  textual  manipulation  whatever; 
Hag.  1:9,  "Because  of  my  house  [n"]n  J^in  "iipX],  which  lieth 
waste"  (Kautzsch:  "Um  meines  Hauses  willen,  well  es  in  Triimmern 
liegt");  Ps.  66:20,  "Blessed  be  Jahwe  [^nbsn  n^CH  !J<b  ntflS!], 
who  has  not  turned  away  my  prayer";  Ps.  71:19,  "Thy  righteous- 
ness, O  God,  is  very  high  [Hlblj  ^"'"^^  '^'^^],  who  hast  done 
great  things";  Job  5:3-5,  "I  have  seen  the  foolish  taking  root; 
but  suddenly  I  cursed  his  habitation  ....  [bp^^^  ZL^p  il^llp  n^X], 


82  Carl  Gaenssle 

whose  harvest  the  hunf>;ry  (>:i,toth  up";  Jol)  9:13-15,  "  .  .  .  . 
The  helpers  of  Raliab  stoop  under  him,  how  much  less  sliould  I 
answer  him  [vs.  14]  ...  .  [n:yS  sb  ^npn^  DS  n"^S],  whom, 
thoujili  I  were  rijihleous.  I  (h)u1(1  not  answer";    or,  reading  HDIJN , 

''who,    though shall   receive   no   answer";    Job   9:16-17, 

"If  I  should  call  and  he  would  answer  me,  I  would  not  believe  that 
he  would  listen  to  my  voice  C^S^'JiJ'^  •^^r"'^^  ^'^^1'  who  overwhelms 
me  with  a  tempest"  (a  very  obvious  example  of  causal  relative); 
Job  37:16-17,  "Knowest  thou  the  poisings  of  the  thick  cloud,  the 
wonders  of  Him  who  is  perfect  in  knowledge  [D'^^'j  T"^?^  '^'^^}> 
[thou]  whose  garments  are  hot?";  Koh.  8:13,  "It  shall  not  be  well 
with  the  wicked  and  he  shall  not  prolong  his  days  like  a  shadow 
[D^nbS  ^DSbp  K"^;  l^rSl  nipS],  who  does  not  fear  God";  Dan. 
8:9,  "To  us  belongs  confusion  of  face,  to  our  kings,  to  our  princes, 
to  our  fathers  [?jb  ^]5<Dn  "I12S],  who  have  sinned  against  thee"; 
I  Chron.  21:8,  "And  David  said  unto  God,  I  have  sinned  greatly 
[-•Tn  ^n'^n-n5<  ^n^iry  nUJ«],  who  have  done  this  thing." 

Filial  Clauses  ^ 

110.  Final  or  purpose  clauses  are  not  infrequently  introduced 
by  '^'i23S .  They  are  of  two  kinds,  viz.,  pure  and  com'plementary . 
In  the  former,  the  verb  of  the  main  sentence  contains  a  complete 
thought,  while,  in  the  latter,  it  requires  the  dependent  clause  as  its 
necessary  complement. 

111.  A.  Pure  final  clauses. — Gen.  11:7,  "Let  us  confound  their 
language  [^'2^^^  i<b  nsS],  that  they  do  not  understand"  (LXX: 
tW  jjLT});  Exod.  20:26,  "Thou  shalt  not  go  up  by  steps  upon 
my  altar  [yby  ^^^"!?  »^5^?0  ^^  ^^^]>  that  thy  nakedness  be 
not  revealed  thereon";  Deut.  4:10,  "Assemble  the  people  and  I 
will  make  them  hear  my  words  [^ni<  ^^5n-b  ■^T^b"'.  -^^^l  that  they 
may  learn  to  fear  me";  Deut.  4:40,  "And  thou  shalt  keep  his 
statutes  .  .  .  .  [?|b  np^";  niajj;],  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee" 
(cf.  "y'^b  in  the  same  verse);  Deut.  6:3,  "Hear,  Israel,  and  observe 
....  [ii^'^  ■^n^n  nirSi'l  ?|b  np^*;  ^^JJ;],    that    it    may    be    well 

»  BDB  treats  final  and  result  clauses  under  one  head:  "It  ["ItpSl  is  resolvable 
into  'so  that.'"  But  "so  that"  may  be  final,  expressing  aim,  or  it  may  be  consecutive, 
expressing  result.  Gen.  11:7  and  22 :  14  certainly  do  not  represent  a  single  type  of  clause. 
The  former  clearly  denotes  aim  or  purpose,  the  latter  an  actual  consequence  or  result. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "I123N  83 

with  thee  and  that  you  may  increase  exceedingly";  Deut.  32:46, 
''  Set  your  heart  unto  all  the  words  which  I  testify  unto  you  this  day 
[D5^_j2"n5<  D^^n  ^llJi^t]";  this  clause  is  probably  best  taken  as  a 
relative,  "which  ye  shall  command"  (against  Gesenius-Kautzsch, 
Davidson),  since  the  action  of  the  main  clause  does  not  look  forward 
to  another  action  as  its  aim;  in  other  words,  it  is  not  a  means  to 
an  end,  but  an  end  in  itself;  the  relative  clause  is  here  very  loosely 
attached  to  the  preceding;  Josh.  3:7:  "I  will  begin  to  make  thee 
great  in  the  eyes  of  all  Israel  ....  [nipi^D  ^3  "!13?T  ^^X], 
that  they  may  know  that,"  etc.;  Ruth  3:11,  "Shall  I  not  seek  rest 
for  thee  [T]b  np^";  nilJX],  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee?";  Koh. 
7:21,  ''Take  no  heed  unto  all  words  that  are  spoken  [ifb  "I123i< 
?jbbj>p  ir|^n3'"nx  :f')2'^r\],  lest  thou  hear  thy  servant  curse  thee"; 
Neh.  2:7,  "Let  letters  be  given  unto  me  to  the  governors  beyond 
the  river  [^2^"i^nr  "iW],  that  they  allow  me  to  pass";  Neh. 
2:8,  "And  a  letter  unto  Asaph  [D"^?  ^)  "Fl^  nT235<],  that  he  may 
give  me  timber";  II  Chron.  1:11,  "  .  .  .  .  but  hast  asked  wisdom 
and  knowledge  for  thyself  [""S?  niSllJri  ^123^5],  that  thou  mayest 
judge  my  people";  Jer.  42:14,  "We  shall  go  to  Egypt  [S<b  ^^H^ 
n^nbp  ns^j],  that  we  may  not  see  war,"  or  "where  we  shall 
not  see  war";  either  is  possible,  if  the  present  text  be  retained. 

112.  B.  Complementary  final  clauses. — These  clauses  are  found 
after  verbs  of  will  or  purpose,  or  equivalent  expressions.  They  are 
substantive  clauses  and  may  represent  a  subject  or  an  object. 

a)  Complementary  final  clauses  as  subject:  Esther  1:19,  "If 
it  please  the  king,  let  it  be  written  [^DSb  ^n^l  XizP  5<b  nilJS 
Tljb^n],  that  Vashti  come  not  in  the  presence  of  the  king";  Neh. 
13:1,  "And  it  was  found  written  therein  [^W  U^iu^  ^b  TCN 
DTlbSin  bnpn  ....],  that  an  Ammonite  should  not  enter  into 
the  congregation  of  God."  These  are  the  only  two  instances  that  I 
have  found  in  which  the  final  clause  represents  the  subject.  It  is 
not  impossible,  however,  that  the  Hebrew  usus  loquendi  felt  these 
clauses  to  be  in  an  objective  relation  to  the  governing  verb,  accord- 
ing to  the  well-known  Hebrew  usage  that  a  verb  in  the  passive  may 
take  an  object;   cf.  Gen.  4:18,  "l^^'ni^  ^^Tb  i:^;f^. 

h)  Complementary  final  clauses  as  object:  Gen.  24:3,  "And  I  will 
cause   thee   to   swear  ....  ["'Dnb  rni35<  Hi^n-J^b  n^^;],  that  thou 


84  Carl  (^aensslk 

wilt  not  take  :i  wife  for  my  son,"  etc.;  I  Kings  22:16,  "How  often 
shall  I  cause  thee  to  swear  [D"^n  n'lS-p^  "bi<  "^n-n-sb  mIj^^ 
nin"']  that  thou  speak  to  me  only  the  truth  in  the  name  of  Jahwe?"; 
Esther  2:10,  "  .  .  .  .  Mordecai  had  commanded  her  [Ti»n"Sb  "^W^] 
that  she  should  not  make  it  known";  Dan.  1:8,  "And  Daniel 
purposed  in  his  heart  [bSyp"^  ^^b  '^^^],  that  he  would  not  defile 
himself";  Neh.  2:5,  "If  it 'please  the  king  ....  [^;nb^ri  ^^X], 
that  thou  wouldst  send  me";  the  governing  verb  is  '^p^iJI ,  "I 
would  request,"  to  be  supplied  from  the  preceding  verse;  Neh. 
7:05,  ^brS"  Sb  n-is  Dnb  '\'2i<^^,  "he  told  them  that  they  should 
not  eat"  (cf.  Ezra  2:63);  Neh.  8:14,  "And  they  found  written  in 
the  law  that  Jahwe  had  commanded  by  Moses  [""ZJ.  ^3'!2J[;  "l^X 
bi^'yr^]  that  the  Israelites  should  dwell  [in  tents]";  Neh.  8:15,  ^t2S1 
V7J12J^ ,  "and  that  they  should  proclaim"  (continuation  of  vs.  14); 
Neh.  10:31,  "They  [the  rest  of  the  people,  priests,  Levites,  porters, 
etc.]  entered  into  a  curse  and  into  an  oath  [vs.  30]  ["iFip  !}<b  liIJX 
ysn  ''^?b  ^3'ri3n]  that  we  would  not  give  our  daughters  to  the 
nations  of '  the  land";  Neh.  13:19,  D^IHFIS^  !}<b  ^^iS;  ~T^i<T , 
"and  1  said  that  they  should  not  open  them  [the  gates]";  Neh. 
13:22,  □"■^ni^'p  rrr;  TOS:  D^lbb  "72^*1,  "that  they  should 
be  purifying  themselves";  II  Chron.  18:15  =  1  Kings  22:16  (cf. 
supra). 

Note. — One  cannot  fail  to  notice  that  most  of  these  examples  are  found 
in  late  books,  especially  Nehemiah.  It  is  noteworthy  also  that  these  clauses 
never  take  the  accusative  sign  ns  before  the  TON  • 


Final  Relative  Clauses 

113.  "''i^N  occurs  in  a  few  instances  in  relative  clauses  of  purpose 
(cf.  the  Latin).  Exod.  32:1,  23,  "Make  us  gods  [^r^sb  ^D^  n^fS] 
to  go  before  us"  (in  order  that  they  may  go,  etc.);  (cf.  Vulg. : 
quid  nos  praecedant  [with  subjv.  of  purpose];  Kautzsch:  "schaffe 
uns  einen  Gott,  der  vor  uns  einherziehe");  Num.  27:17:  "Let 
Jahwe  appoint  a  man  over  the  congregation  [vs.  16]  [NJI"^  ^^^. 
Dn"lJSb],  to  go  out  before  them"  (R.V.:  "who  may  go  out  before 
them";  Vulg.:  qui  ....  possit  exire;  Kautzsch:  "der  an  ihrer 
Spitze  ausziehe"). 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^IIJJ?  85 


Consecutive  or  Result  Clauses 


114.  IIIJSl  introduces  clauses  denoting  result  or  consequence: 
Gen.  13 :  16,  "I  will  make  thy  seed  like  the  dust  of  the  earth  [D^<  ^TlJi^ 
n:i3-:  ir|?"lT-°?  'fy'^  ^Sr^^  ^^'■>'^)  ^'^  ^?^1,  so  that  if  any 
man  can  number  the  dust  of  the  earth,  then  may  thy  seed  also 
be  numbered";    Gen.  22:14,  "And  Abraham  called  the  name  of 

the  place  Jahwe-jireh   ["S"^";   nin^  ^Hn  □i'^n  ^"p^<;;  nilJX],  so 

that  it  is  said  to-day"  (the  rest  obscure);  Deut.  28:27,  "Jahwe 
will  smite  thee  with  the  boil  ....  [i<S";n  b^^D  sb  nTliSI],  so 
that  thou  canst  not  be  healed"  (Vulg.:  ita  ut  curari  nequeas;  LXX: 
o)<7T€  fXT]  dvvaadal  ae  ladrfvai;  R.V.,  however:  ''whereof");  I  Kings 
3:12,  ''I  have  given  thee  a  wise  and  understanding  heart   [TC&5 

?5i723  n^p75<b  ^^^'^r,^)  ^^;3b  rrji'i^b  r^rc^],  so  that  there  has 

been  none  Hke  thee  before  thee,"  etc.;  I  Kings  3:13,  "I  have  given 
thee  ....  both  riches  and  honor  [t23^^^  Tji/JS  n^n"J<b  TCi^ 
^'"'C^'b'Z  D^Db^S],  so  that  there  has  been  none  like  thee  among 
the  kings";  translating  n'Tl  as  a  perfect,  "all  thy  days"  must  be 
rejected;  Kittel  in  the  Handk.  takes  H^H  as  a  future  perfect;  in 
this  case,  "all  thy  days"  could  be  retained,  but  it  would  then 
unduly  affect  the  greatness  of  the  promise;  II  Kings  9:37,  "And 
the  body  of  Jezebel  shall  be  as  dung  upon  the  face  of  the  field 
in  the  portion  of  Jezreel  [bnrij^  ni<7  ^"^'C^"  ^b  nilJX],  so  that 
they  shall  not  say.  This  is  Jezebel";  Isa.  65:16,  "He  will  call  his 
servants  by  another  name  ["Hbi^n  "^^^H";  "p!S;n  T^ian^aH  nilis 
"PX],  so  that  he  who  blesses  himself  in  the  earth  shall  i3less  him- 
self in  the  God  Amen";  Jer.  19:11,  "  .  .  .  .  so  will  I  break  this 
people  and  this  city,  as  one  breaketh  a  potter's  vessel  [b'DT  sb  "IIIJN 
lis?  555'^nb],  that  it  cannot  be  made  whole  again";  the  clause 
may,  however,  be  taken  in  a  relative  sense,  "which  cannot,"  etc.; 
Konig  regards  it  as  consecutive;  Mai.  3:19,  "  .  .  .  .  the  day  that 
Cometh  shall  burn  them  up,  says  Jahwe  [W'^W  Qnb  D,iT  ^b  ^^J5 
n:yi],  that  it  shall  not  leave  them  root  or  branch";  Ps.  95:11, 
"Forty  years  long  was  I  grieved  with  this  generation  and  said.  It 
is  a  people  that  do  err  in  their  heart  [10]  ....  [DS,  "^riyn^j  ^123^5 
■'nn^S/J'biSS  •^Sin*'],  so  that  I  sware  that  they  should  not  enter  into 
my  rest";  it  is  possible  here  to  take  "^UJS  simply  in  the  sense  of 
"concerning    whom"    or    "as    to    whom"     (R.V.:     "wherefore"; 


80  Carl  (Jaenssle 

Kautzsch:  "I'nd  so  schwur  ich";  X'ulfi;.:  ///  iuravi;  LXX:  cbs 
cbfxo(Ta);  Esther  9:1,  Q^l^H'^n  ^dbt^_  niZJS  X^H  Tjisn;"] ,  "and  the 
matter  was  reversed  so  that  the  Jews  ruled  [over  those  that  hated 
them]." 

115.  There  is  one  instance  of  complcnientary  consecutive  clause 
in  the  Old  Testament:  Ezek.  36:27,  ^^bn  "prn  ^"^S-nX  ^n^TSyi , 
"and  I  cause  j'^ou  to  walk  in  my  statutes"  (Vulg.:  Faciam  ut  in 
praeceptis  meis  ambuletis). 

Consecutive  Relative  Clauses,  or  Relative  Clauses  of  Characteristic 

116.  This  type  of  clause  is  quite  common  in  Hebrew,  although 
it  has  been  disregarded  by  the  grammars.  It  is  used,  as  will  be  seen 
from  the  following  example,  to  express  a  characteristic  or  quality 
of  an  indefinite  antecedent  (as  a  rule):  Gen.  20:9,  "^W  U^WTC 
^1^3''  r-lT^"  ^iry^  i<b ,  "thou  hast  done  deeds  unto  me  that  ought 
not  to  be  done";  Gen.  41:38,  "And  Pharaoh  said.  Can  we  find  such 
a  one  as  this  [is  D'^T^bx  n^"i  "I'llJiji  '0^!!<],  a  man  in  whom  the  spirit 
of  God  is?"  (Vulg.:  qui  spiritu  Dei  plenus  sit?);  Exod.  5:2,  .  .  .  . 
i^pH  S^'^IIJlSt  "i"l2Ji5  mn^  ■'p,  "who  is  Jahwe,  whose  voice  I  should 
obey?"  (  =  "that  I  should  obey  his  voice")  (Vulg.:  ut  audiam  vocem 
eius);  Exod.  9:18,  "Behold,  to-morrow  about  this  time  I  will  cause 
it  to  rain  a  very  grievous  hail  ....  [Q''i:i"J^  ^Til2^  n^Jl  ^b  "'IIJS], 
such  as  has  not  been  in  Egypt"  (Vulg.:  qualis  non  fuit;  cf. 
Exod.  9:24);  Exod.  11:6,  "And  there  shall  be  a  great  cry  through- 
out all  the  land  of  Egypt  [rir\'Tq  ^h  ^nbS  ^123^5],  such  as  there 
has  not  been";  Exod.  34:10, '"7  will  do  marvels  [^N^nr^^b  IlIJN 
""^^rrbSjj,  such  as  have  not  been  wrought  in  all  the  earth"; 
Deut.  3:24,  "  .  .  .  .  what  god  is  there  in  heaven  or  in  earth  ["■'''P^^ 
T^''''XT2'D  niry^]  that  can  do  according  to  thy  deeds?"  (Vulg.:  qui 
possit  facere  opera  tua;  Kautzsch:  "der  solche  Werke  verrichten 
konnte?");  Deut.  28:49-50,  "Jahwe  will  bring  a  nation  against 
thee  from  afar  ....  [HlflS  U^ZB  T^  ^i:  tlT'b  TC'JiT)-^':  ^t^_  ^13 
"O'lS  Sifl''  iJ^b],  a  nation  whose  tongue  thou  shalt  not  understand, 
a  nation  of  fierce  countenance  that  shall  not  regard  the  person  of 
the  old,"  etc.  (Vulg.:  cuius  linguam  intelligere  non  possis;  gentem, 
quae  non  deferat  seni,  nee  misereatur  parvuli);  I  Kings  3:8,  3T?J^ 
It;  ^SQ^  !}<b"l  Hj^Q'^-i^b  ^"m,  "a   great   people,  that  cannot  be 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "^'iSS  87 

numbered  nor  counted  for  multitude  (Kautzsch:  "dass  es  vor 
Menge  nicht  zu  zahlen  noch  zu  berechnen  ist");  Isa.  7:17,  "Jahwe 
shall  bring  upon  thee  and  upon  thy  people  and  upon  thy  father's 
house  [Di^-;b  !15<n-5<b  ^'m  nrr]  days  that  [such  as]  have  not 
come"  (Kautzsch:  ''Tage,  dergleichen  nicht  gekommen  sind");  Jer. 
49:19,  ":3b  lar  TIIJX  nn  n-r;^,  ^'Who  is  the  shepherd  that 
shall  stand  before  me?"  (Vulg.:  Quis  est  isle  -pastor,  qui  resistat 
vultui  nieo^  Kautzsch:  "wo  ware  der  Hirte,  der  vor  mir  Stand 
halten  konnte?";  cf.  Jer.  50:44);  Dan.  12:1,  ^TJ^S;  H;^  Ty  nnvn 
"ni'Tl'^^  nri^rij  ^ib  ,  "And  there  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble  such  as 
there  never  has  been  since  there  was  [a  nation,  etc.]"  (Vulg.: 
veniet  tempvs,  quale  non  fuit) ;  Neh.  5:2-4,  D"'T^i5  ^^^_  IIJ;;') ,  "There 
were  those  who  said"  (Vulg.:  erant,  qui  dicerent);  the  expression 
occurs  at  the  beginning  of  three  successive  verses;  it  corresponds 
exactly  with  the  Latin  relative  clause  of  characteristic  after  general 
expressions  of  existence  or  non-existence;  I  Chron.  17:21,  "And 
who  is  like  thy  people  Israel,  a  unique  people  in  the  earth  [^^X 
Uy  ib  niisb  □■'ribxri  ^b^],  that  God  went  to  redeem  unto  him- 
self for  a  people";  if  Chron.  1:12,  "5  H^n^sb  ni25S  T^b^irii^  ito 
"D-Db^b  ,  "And  honor  I  will  give  thee  such  as  none  of  the  kings 
had  that  were  before  thee";  the  "?  here  takes  the  place  of  the 
ordinary  ^TiWD,  but  it  might  be  dispensed  with  altogether  without 
altering  the  sense;  II  Chron.  2: 5,  n^n  ib-^Dn^^  ^llJi^  "DS  ^12^,  "and 
who  am  I  that  I  should  build  him  a  house?" 

Conditional  Clauses 

117.  The  particle  "^"^^  may  introduce  conditional  clauses: 
Exod.  21:13,  Dip7J  ^b  "P^riJI  .  .  .  .  niT  xb  ^^^),  "and  if 
he  does  not  act  presumptuously,  then  I  will  appoint  you  a  place"; 
since  this  verse  continues  and  modifies  the  thought  of  the  preceding 

verse  (n7JV liJ"^^  ^?'r),  I  prefer  to  take  ^^Sl  as  a  conditional 

conjunction  rather  than  as  an  indefinite  relative  pronoun  ("whoso," 
Driver,  Heh.  Tenses,  123)  (cf.  Kautzsch:  "Wenn  er  [i.e.,  the  TO";] 
es  aber  nicht  vorsatzlich  gethan");  Lev.  4:22,  J^^m";;  i^^'w:  "^tpS, 
"if  a  ruler  sinneth";  Num.  5:29,  HIC^^^  nnn  J^TtW  HtD'lEn  n^S!, 
"if  a  wife  [being]  under  her  husband  turn  aside";    hardly  welches 


88  Caul  (Jap:nssle 

Weib  (Erwald),  assuming  an  attraction  of  the  antecedent;  Num. 
0:20,  21,  "'"^i^  "^2"^  is  not  conditional  (against  Friedrich);  the  sense 
is  simply  it  happened  that;  Deut.  11:27,  "The  blessing  CIIJS 
nirr"  ni:i"I"t;S  ^"-"^ri],  if   you   obey  the  commands  of   Jahwc" 

(cf.  vs.  28,  ^:?"-':Jn  ^^b  dx);  Deut.  18:22,  s^nsn  ^ST  n^^X,  "if 

a  prophet  speaks";  Baentsch  renders:  "Was  der  Prophet  redet 
(ohne  dass  es  geschioht  und  eintrifft,  das  ist  ein  Wort,"  etc.);  Josh. 
4:21,  Dr:n  "^bs;';!3^  ^"JJNI,  "if  your  children  ask"  (cf.  4:6,  "^3 
"Jlbs^-;);'  I^Kings  8:31,  ':5-i<  ^^DH^  nilJS;  nS ,  "if  a  man  sin"  (lit. 
"as  to  the  case  when  a  man  sins")  (cf.  II  Chron.  6:22,  5^12""'  D^S). 

Conditional  Relative  Clauses  ^ 

118.  A  relative  clause  in  Hebrew  (as  in  other  languages)  often 
involves  the  idea  of  condition.  This  is  the  case  when  the  clause  does 
not  refer  to  any  specific  individual  or  thing,  which  it  describes,  but 
to  a  whole  class  of  persons  or  things  supposable  under  any  given 
circumstances.  Such  clause  is  not  declarative,  but  merely  assump- 
tive, and  hence  it  performs  essentially  the  same  function  as  condi- 
tionals strictly  so  called.  This  becomes  especially  apparent  in  cases 
where,  by  a  kind  of  anacoluthon,  there  is  no  formal  agreement  or  con- 
nection between  the  main  and  the  relative  clauses.  Such  looseness 
of  construction  is  conditioned  by  the  indefinite  nature  of  the  relative 
clauses.  Cf.  Lev.  22:18-19,  ^"^1^  n^np:  ^12JX  .  -  •  •  12J^i<  'JJ^K 
~^Z'  W'Zri  DpZ^'^b  .  .  .  .,  "Any  man  ....  who  brings  his  offer- 
ing— [ye  shall  offer  such]  that  ye  may  be  accepted,"  etc.;  Isa.  55:1, 
^jb   "|C3  ib   7^  "^"^^V    "whoever    hath    no    money — come    ye"; 

Zech.  14:17,  nmn  r\^n^_  nn^by  ^<bi  ....  nbr-sb  n-csi  n^ni, 

"And  it  shall  be  that  whoever  does  not  go  up  ...  .  upon  them 
shall  be  no  rain." 

119.  Syntactically,  conditional  relative  clauses  naturally  follow 
the  rules  of  hypothetical  periods.  Thus  the  relative  clause  (or,  as 
one  might  say,  the  relative  protasis)  most  frequently  takes  the  imper- 
fect as  the  tense  of  incompleted  and  therefore  indeterminate  action; 

cf.  Gen.  17:14,  nn"]D;i  •  •  •  •  ^cnTX  bis";-&<b  n^s;  ^dt  by^ 

iX'^Ti'n  llJSSn ,  "And  the  uncircumcised  male  who  is  not  circum- 
cised ....  that   soul   shall   be   cut   off"    (Vulg.:    circumcisa  non 

«  Cf.  Friedrich,   Hebr.  Conditionalsatze.  §§88fr. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "1112^5  89 

fuerit);  Gen.  24:14,  ''And  the  girl  ["7^S1  ....  rrbif^  T;i<  n^SS;], 
to  whom  I  shall  say  [let  down  thy  pitcher]  and  she  say";  this  is 
equivalent  to :  "  If  the  girl  to  whom  I  shall  say,  Let  down  thy  pitcher, 
say  .  .  .  ."  (cf.  vs.  43,  ^Fl'i'IS,  where  the  tone  proves  that  HT^SI 
in  vs.  14  has  1  consecutive,^  introducing  the  apodosis);  Gen.  44:9, 
r\'2']  ....  ins  i<-j::2";  "I'J^yt,  "with  whom  it  shall  be  found  [he] 
shall  die";  Exod.  30:33',  V^Q^J  n^r-wT  ....  ^ribS  npn":  ITIJ^  t2J-i< , 
"whoever  compoundeth  anything  like  it  ...  .  shall  be  cut  off 
from  his  people  (LXX:  6s  av  iroLiqari  ;  Vulg.:  Homo  quicumque  tale 
composuerit);  Lev.  7:20,  nn^^DI  ....  bp^D-n^S  ^SSni ,  "and 
the  soul  that  eateth  ....  shall  be  cut  off"  (LXX:  tjtis  eav  (j)ayri  ; 
Vulg.:  quae  ederit);  Lev.  17:3,  mpDI  •  •  •  .  tirip^  ^t25^^  ^■'^5  '^"5< 
(vs.  4),  "whoever  killeth  ....  shall  be  cut  off"  (cf.  Lev.  17:8,  13; 
18:5,  "Keep  my  statutes  [DHl  'Hi  QIS"  Onj^  TV^T  ItflJJ;], 
which,  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  live  thereby"  (cf.  Latin:  philosophia, 
cut  qui  pareat,  omne  tempus  aetatis  sine  molestia  possit  degere); 
Lev.  20:6;  Num.  15:30,  nn^D:i  .  •  •  •  TiW^ri  n^5<  ^33.ri;  Deut. 
17:12,    S^nr:    1l5'«"    n"r^  •  •  •  ■  n'lrr-nias;    lliSiri;    Deut.    18:20, 

r\-2^ ....  ■'nr  ^t^Jsi ....  Tr  n^s  ^^r?~ ;  J^dg.  i :  12,  n^i< 

ib  ^nn;i  .  .  .  .'^SC  n:ip-nt<  nV  (LXX:  6s  av  irara^v  •  •  •  •  ^^<^^ 
avTio);    isa.   56:4,  "For  thus  says  Jahwe  concerning  the  eunuchs 

[□nb  ^nn:"] ....  ^ninn'jj-n^^  ^^-r^^.  ^'^^]";  Jer.  27: ii,  .  .  .  . 
rnnsni  .V.  .  bns  ^b-j  b':?n  ri<^J^-ni<  i<^n;  ^tiSs  ^'i-in'i  (LXX: 

/cat  TO  Wvos  6  idv  daayayri  ....  KaraXe ti/'co) ;  Mic.  3:5,  ^b  ■^123^^'l 
"■^nb:-  rb:?  ^"^1P1  Q""^"^?  l^"!'  "And  whoever  does  not  give 
into  their  mouths,  they  consecrate  war  against  him." 

120.  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  all  the  examples  thus  far  cited  the 
relative  clause  with  the  imperfect  is  followed  by  the  perfect  and 
waw  consecutive  in  the  main  sentence.  More  frequently,  however, 
the  latter  also  takes  the  imperfect;  cf.  Gen.  31:32,  ^^S  7J3? 
TTTr  5<b  TTTlbi^Ti^  S:i"^ri ,  "with  whomsoever  thou  findest 
thy  gods,  [he]  shall  not  live"  (LXX:  Uap'  w  au  evprjs  .  .  .  .  ov 
^rjaerai ;  Vulg. :  apud  quemcumque  inveneris) ;  Gen.  44 :  10,  ^1235^ 
in>'  ^b  TTrC"  in5<  ^'^'^".^  "with  whomsoever  it  is  found  [he] 
shaH  be  my  servant"  (LXX:  Hap'  w  av  evpedri  .  .  .  .  ;  Vulg.:  apud 
quemcumque  fuerit  inventum) ;   cf .  the  preceding  verse,  where  instead 

•  Cf.  Driver,  Hebrew  Tenses,  p.  131. 


00  Carl  Gaknssl?: 

of  iinpcrffct  in  the  (tpodosis  we  have  the  i)('rf('('t  with  ivaw  consecu- 

tin:   i.cv.  7:10,  brs"   sb   s'^p-brs  :"r  ■""lr^5  ^cnn  (lxx: 

Kal  Kpia  oca  iau  a\pT]Tai  .  .  .  .  ov  tSpcodrjaerai  ;  Viilg. :  caro,  quae 
tetigerit);  Lev.  15:5,  riia  Cnr  i^S^'^n  yr  ^TTX  ^^fi^"]  (LXX: 
Kai  audpcoiros  6s  iai'  axp-qrai  ....  ■Kkvvel  to.  iixaTia  ;  Vulg. :  Si  quis 
Iwminum  tetigerit  ....  lavabii);  Lev.  20:2,  ^12JS  •  •  •  •  'JJ^J^  IZJ"'^ 
n*;V  T\ri  ....  -FI-CLXX:  'Edz^ns  ....  OS  a;/ So;;  cf.  Lev.  20:9, 
10.  11,  12,  13,  14,  and  other  examples  in  the  same  chapter) ;  Lev. 
21:10;  Num.  5:10,  n^r;-  ib  "nsb  ',rT:-""i'X  :r^t5  (LXX:  Kalai'Tip 
OS  iav  8u)  tepet,  aurw  eVrat);  Num.  22:0,  ^SV  ^i<n  ^tbs;  (LXX:  oi)s 
Siu  KaTapaarj);  Deut.  18:19,  ^SbX  ....  y>2'^^_  «b  ^^^J^  llJ'Sn  H^ni 
i^^'I  ■^'''^yi  (LXX :  OS  iCLP  nrj  aKovar\  ....  lKbLKi)GO)  e^  auroO) ;  Judg. 
6:31,  n:;v'ib  n^-^;  ^ICS:  (LXX:  Ss  ed/^  SudaT/rat) ;  I  Sam.  17:25, 
-brn  ^3^":5"'  ^33^ '^irSi 'LlJ^J^r: ,  "whoever  slays  him,  the  king  will 
make  him' rich";  Isa'.  60:12,  ':\r[2.T  sb  ^^S  nDb^^^QHI  ^rSH 
■"ZS" ,  "the  nation  and  kingdom  which  shall  not  serve  thee  shall 
peri-sh";  Jer.  27:8,  inS  T^ZT  ^<b  ^T^S  njb7^53riT  ^iSH  H^mI 
....  "piNi  .  .  .  .  ,  "and  the  nation  and  kingdom  which  shall  not 
serve  him\'  ...  I  will  punish  .  .  .  .";  Ezek.  1:12,  'nVP  ^IIJS;  bx 
^t*"  Dljbb  ij^^n  n^123 ,  "wherever  the  spirit  went  [imperfect  of 
repeated  action],  they\vent"  (cf.  Ezek.  1:20);  Koh.  5:3,  ^123^5  ni< 
D*-  "''^ri ,  "whatsoever  you  vow,  fulfil"  (LXX:  oaa  eav  ev^rj 
dTToSos;  Vulg.:  Quodcumque  voveris  redde) .  In  Zech.  14:17,  even  the 
imperfect  has  the  waw  consecutive:  tTTT^  ^VrZ  ^^)  »^/r'?!'^'^  ^"'P'i!? 
Dwliri ,  "whoever  shall  not  go  up,  upon  them  shall  be  no  rain." 

121.  The  conditional  relative  clause  sometimes  takes  the  perfect, 
in  which  case  the  implied  condition  is  conceived  by  the  imagination 
as  reahzed;  cf.  Num.  9:13,  nCBH  niTIJyb  b'ltl  .  .  .  .  ^^^^  ^^i<ri 
.  .  .  .  nri"'3:V  "The  man  who  forbeareth  to  keep  the  passover, 
[that  soul]  shall  be  cut  off"  (LXX  [as  in  other  examples  where  the 
imperfect  is  employed]:   6s  eav  ....  vareprjari) ;  Isa.  50:10,   lljpi^ 

mn^  Dtpn  npn-;  ib  n^b  -fsi  D^pirn  T]bn,  "he  that  waiketh  m' 

darkness  and  hath  no  light,  let  him  trust  in  the  name  of  Jahwe." 

122.  The  relative  clause  may  also  take  the  participle;  cf.  I 
Sam.  11:7,  nirr  Tiz  .  .  .  .  iK'4'  ^Sr«  "ilfl^^,  "whoever  does  not 
go  forth  ....  so  shall  it  be  done  [unto  his  oxen]."  Here  the 
emphasis  is  not  primarily  on  a  possible  future  action,  but  on  a  possible 


The  Hebrew  Particle  illJi^  91 

mental  attitude  with  reference  to  Saul's  command.  The  sense  is 
"whoever  shows  no  inclination  to  go  forth." 

123.  The  clause  may  also  be  a  purely  nominal  sentence.  In 
this  case  there  is  no  verb  at  all.  Cf.  Jer.  23:28,  '\^^  ^^?IT^ 
.  .  .  .  "lEC"'  Dij'j  'il^^,  "the  prophet  who  has  a  dream,  let  him 
tell  it";  Jer.  15:2,  n^^b  ni^b  "^lliy;  (cf.  Jer.  43:11;  Num.  9:13); 
Job  39:30,  ^5^n  "iSp  Vbbn  ^"iXn^,  ''and  wherever  the  slain 
are,  there  is  he"  (LXX:  ov  av  coat  redvecoTes;  Vulg.:  Ubicumque 
cadaver  fuerit,  statim  adest) . 

124.  Sometimes  instead  of  the  perfect  with  waw  or  the  imperfect, 
the  bare  perfect  is  employed  in  the  main  clause;    cf.  Ezek.  14:4, 

ib  ^n-^ry:  mn"*  ^dn?  .  .  .  .  vb^b—ns;  nbr  may;  .  .  .  .  iij'^5  is^^^, 

"Every  man  who  causes  his  idols  to  come  up  [into  his  heart] 
....  I,  Jahwe  will  answer  him."  The  perfect  here  expresses  the 
certainty  and  immediateness  of  the  result;  cf.  also  Ezek.  14:7; 
Gen.  24:14,  rir^h  HnS  ....  T^S  nnJS;  n^sn  n^HI ,  "And  the 
girl  to  whom  I  shall  say  ....  her  thou  hast  appointed." 

125.  If  the  idea  of  generalization  is  to  receive  greater  emphasis 
than  is  already  implied  in  the  indefinite  relative  clause  as  such,  the 
antecedent  or  the  relative  particle  (according  as  the  clause  is 
dependent  or  independent)  is  often  preceded  by  .^D .  As  to  the 
form,  the  use  of  the  imperfect  in  both  members  of  the  sentence 
represents  the  prevailing  type.  Out  of  the  thirty-seven  instances 
that  follow,  eighteen  are  of  this  character;  cf.  Exod.  20:24,  "b3!ll 
?j^bs  ^<in^5  ^"^ip-nS  "^^DTS  ^'iSN  Dip^n,  "  in  every  place  where  i 
shall  record  my  name  I  will  come  to  you";  Lev.  6:20,  y^  '^12JI}<  blD 
IZJ'^p''  ni''j:3!Il ,  "whoever  touches  the  flesh  thereof  shall  be  holy"; 
Lev.  15:¥o,'  X^Jip";  ....  rb:^'  nS^n  ^^^S;  bbl,  "everything  that 
shelieth  upon  shall  be  unclean";  Lev.  15:26,  hlSn  ^^S  ^bSH-bS 
rrri'^  i<'2p  Vby,  "every  vessel  that  she  sitteth  upon  shall  be 
unclean";'  Num.  19:16,  X'^ta":  ....  :'"r"^^^.  ^^1.  "whosoever 
touches  shall  be  unclean";  ^Num.  19:22,  ^'zX^ri  ^^  la  ^TTS;^  bS 
J^'^ti";,  "whosoever  the  unclean  person  touches  shall  be  unclean"; 
Num.  22:17,  niryJSS  ^bi<  T^5<n"^12J^5  bb,  "whatsoever  thou  sayest 

I  will  do";  Deut.' i'i :24,  n^rr:  ddV .'. . .  q3  tjinFi  ^m  nip^n-b3 , 

"every  place  the  sole  of  your  feet  shall  tread  upon  shall  be  yours"; 
Deut.  15:19,  HJ'^'npln  ....  ibV  ntpS  lisnri-bS ,   "every  firstling 


92  Carl  (Iaenssle 

tluit  is  born  thou  shalt  sanctify";  Dent.  19:15,  "One  witness 
[n?ip;  Sb]  against  a  man  [Xi:-^  ""dS  Nlpr-bsn]  in  any  sin  that 
he  has  sinned";  I  Sam.  14:47,  r^^:  n:S";-n\ZJi<  bbS ,  "whither- 
soever he  turned  he  was  victorious";  so,  if  instead  of  y*"!?"^^  we 
read  (cf.  LXX:  ccoj^cto)  y'C^''. ,  "he  was  saved"  or  "victorious"; 
II  Sam.  15:35,  TSn  .  .  .  .'riipn  miJS  ^n^n-'bS,  "whatsoever 
thou  shalt  hear,  thou  shalt  tell";  II  Kings' 10: 19^,  lpE';-ni2JS  Vs 
n"""  xb ,  "whosoever  shall  be  missing  shall  not  live";  Joel  3:5, 
tsb^'  rt*\rr  C'liS  S"^p";  IllJSl  bb,  "whosoever  shall  call  upon  the 
name  of  Jahwe' shall'  escape";  Ps.  1:3,  n^b^:  TVTT  "112JS  bs , 
"whatsoever  he  doeth,  he  carries  out  successfully";  Prov.  17:9, 
b*'DTC^  »"'.'??''.  "'''^^'b^'bi;^,  "whithersoever  he  turneth  he  is  successful"; 
Prov.  21:1,  ^St2^_  ysn^  n^S'b^-b^ ,  "whithersoever  he  wills  he 
turns  it";  II  Chron.  15: 13,  T\'2r  ....  "CnT-sb  TlIJS;  bb ,  "who- 
soever should  not  seek  [Jahwe]  ....  should  be  put  to  death." 

126.  Quite  frequently  also  the  apodosis  is  introduced  by  the 
perfect  and  waw  consecutive;  cf.  Exod.  9:19,  "^tdS  ....  DlJ^rrbS 
^iU'l)  T^n-  nrrhy  l-n  ....  mian  5^;:^^'  "every  maV  land 
beast]  that  shall  be  found  in  the  field  ....  the  hail  shall  come 
down  upon  them";  Lev.  7:27,  'nn'^^:^  ....  bSSn-niDS!  ^S^"^? , 
"whosoever  eateth  ....  shall  be  cut  off";  Lev.  17:15,  IIJSp'blD 
CSj*)  ....  b^Xn  "^^^  ,  "  whosoever  eateth  shall  wash  [his  clothes] " ; 

Lev.  18:29,  n-w^ri  niirpn  ^nn^si  ....  nirr  ^^^^"bs,  "who- 
soever does  [these  abominations] — the  souls  that  do  them  shall  be 
cut  off";  note  here  the  plural  in  the  apodosis  due  to  the  broad 
indefiniteness  of  the  relative  clause;  Lev.  22:3,  n^p";-^^5<  t2J^5<-b3 
X^nn  tDSSn  nn^SDI  .  .  .  .  ,  "every  man  that  approaches  .... 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off";  observe  here  the  change  of  subject  in 
the  apodosis  resulting  again  from  the  wide  and  general  application 
of    the    relative    clause;     Lev.    23:29,     HSJ^n-i^b    ^^^    ^SSPi-bS 

r;n';^r;'i;    Lev.  23:30,   ^^^n^^:^1  ....  niryn  ""cj^  Tiissn-bs; 

II  Chron.  19:10,  Qri^NSTrTl  QTby  Xi^^-n-irJift  n^T^SI,  "and  every 
controversy  that  shall  come  to  you  [from  your  brethren,  etc.],  you 
shall  warn  them." 

127.  The  relative  clause  may  be  a  purely  nominal  sentence;  cf. 
Lev.  21:18,  n^p";    Kb    Lr,2    iZ    nips    ^^i<-b3,   "whatsoever   man 


The  Hebrew  Particle  112^^  93 

has  a  blemish  shall  not  approach";  Lev.  22:20,  C^7J  iS-nilS^^-bS 
^n^ipn  ^b ,  "whosoever  has  a  blemish  you  shall  not  cause  to 
approach";  Num.  19:14,  K^Jt:":  bnJJ^n  ^^5^"^:: ,  "whosoever  is  in 
the  tent  shall  be  unclean."  Again,  the  apodosis  may  have  the  bare 
perfect  for  sake  of  greater  emphasis.  Cf.  Josh.  1:3,  D'lp'J'^S 
Vnnj  Dpb  in  ....  r?  "^"^"^^  "^'^^^  "every  place  whereon  the 
sole  [of  your  feet]  shall  tread,' to  you  have  I  given  it";  Judg.  2:15, 
D3"nr\'n  r^^rr  T  ^i<^^  TOS  bb:a,  "whithersoever  they  went  out 
the  hand  of  Jahwe  was  against  them." 

128.  The  relative  clause  appears  also  with  the  perfect;  cf. 
Num.  30:10,  D^p";  iT:33"b>'  rT)CSi'lT^Sl  V3,  "everything  where- 
with she  hath  bound  her  soul  shall  stand";  I  Chron.  18:6,  ^^T) 
■qbn  HTIJS  bbZL  Tllb   r^rr  ;   cf.  I  Chron.  18:13. 

"l29.  The  main  clause  or  apodosis  may  be  a  nominal  sentence; 

cf.  Josh.  2:19,  i':J^^^2  T2"n T]n'?  ^rhrg  i^:i:  "^m  bs, 

"whosoever  goes  forth  from  the  doors  of  thy  house,  his  blood  is 
upon  him."  . 

130.  Both  members  may  be  nominal;  cf.  Gen.  30:33,  "^^^^  b3 
i^Jin  u^jI*  •  •  •  •  5<^bi:1  np3  'ISr^^  "every  one  that  is  not  speckled 
or  spotted  ....  shall' be  [counted  as]  stolen";  Num.  19:15,  ^bs  b'3 
i<^n  5<'-t:  rby  b^nS  -r'^Z^  'C^  '^^^.  "^r^£,  "every  open  vessel, 
which  hath  no  cover  bound  upon  it,  is  unclean." 

131.  Finally,  the  main  clause  may  have  the  imperfect  with  the 
waw  consecutive;  d.U^Sim.  15:2,  2^^.  ib-n:'n-ni23S  \2J^Srrb?  V'^ 
DibirnS  ^"^p^l  ....  5<inb,  "and  if  any  man  had  a  suit  .... 
then  Absalom  would  call  to  him,"  etc. 

132.  Another  mode  of  generalizing  a  relative  clause  and  thus 
rendering  it  virtually  conditional  is  to  prefix  the  antecedent  or  the 
particle  with  the  interrogative  "p  (H?^)  used  indefinitely.  How 
far  the  latter  in  these  instances  may  have  retained  its  interrogative 
force  it  is  impossible  to  tell.  This  question,  however,  does  not 
affect  the  general  sense  of  the  clause.  Cf.  Exod.  32:33,  "And 
Jahwe  said  unto  Moses  ^^^'2  ^S'^^S  ^b'S^n  n^S  ^12],  Who- 
soever has  sinned  against  me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book" 
(lit.  "who  [is  it]  that  has  sinned  against  me?— him  will  I  blot  out"; 
LXX:  €t  ns  wapTrjKev  kvcombv  fwv,  e^aXetiAco  .  .  .  .  ;  Vulg.:  qui 
peccaverit  ....  deleho);   II  Sam.  20:11,  "And  there  stood  by  him 


94  (\\HL    (^.AKNSSLE 

one  of  Joab's  youiijj;  nuni  and  said  [^uJS  ^'2^  nSTS  VSn  "nilj^^  ^•)2 
-^^'^"'  ""1"^  "'l"r]'  wliosoover  has  delight  in  Joab  and  whosoever 
is  for  David,  let  him  follow  Joab";  Eccles.  9:4,  ^Hj^  n'^SS  ""I-S 
■jirt^n  'i^  C^nn-bS  bs,  "For  whosoever  is  united  with  all  the 
living — there  is  hope";  as  in  other  cases,  referred  to  above,  there 
is  here  no  formal  agreement  between  the  main  sentence  and  the 
relative  clause;  Deut.  20:5,  T^bv  .  .  .  njn  ■'ipS:  IIJ^SH  ^7^,  "who- 
soever has  built  [a  house]  ....  may  go"  (lit.,  "who  [is  the]  man 
that  has  built  a  house,"  etc.;  both  LXX  and  Vulg.  retain  the 
interrogative  construction  here:  Tts  6  dvdpcowos  .  .  .  .  ,  Quis  est 
homo,  qui  aedificavit;  Kautzsch:  "Jeflermann  unter  euch,  der  ein 
neues  Haus  gebaut  hat  ....  mag  abtreten";  cf.  also  vss.  6  and 
7);  Judg.  10:18,  mhb  rrr\^_  .  .  .  .  b-^  TCN  ■O^Xn  rj,  "who- 
soever shall  begin  [to  fight]  shall  be  head";  in  this  case  the  Vulg. 
abandons  the  interrogative  construction:  Qui  primus  coeperit  dimi- 
care  ....  erit  dux;  LXX:  Tts  6  avr^p  octtls  olp  dp^erat  ....  /cat 
eVrat  ets  apxovra,  carrying  on  the  question  to  the  end  of  the 
verse. 

133.  A  participle  may  take  the  place  of  the  relative  clause;  cf. 
I  Sam.  11:12,  ^IDFl  ^rb^  Tj'bp-]  b^STIJ  ^'q\Xn  ^12,  "whoever  says 
.  .  .  .  deliver  [the  men,  etc.]";  Deut.  20:8;  Judg.  7:3.  Of  course, 
an  adjective  or  noun  may  also  be  employed;  cf.  Ps.  34:13-14, 
>-T2  Tj:iT2Jb  liiD  ....  D^^n  ysnn  HJ-sn  ^2,  "who  is  the  man 
that  desireth  life  ....  keep  thy  tongue  from  evil  [and  thy  lips 
from  speaking  guile]";  logically,  the  question  is  equivalent  to  a 
conditional  clause,  of  which  the  imperative  forms  the  apodosis  (cf. 
Baethgen:   "Wenn  du  .  .  .  .  begehrst  ....  so  bewahre,"  u.s.w.); 

Exod.  24:14,  n^^b^|:  Tijr  D^nnr]  byn-^Tj;  isa.  50:8,  b^n-^-j 
"bx  *^T  ^ps^"^ .'      ' 

134.  ^'2  alone  is  sometimes  equivalent  to  ^TIJSl  ^'2 ;  cf.  II  Sam. 
20:11,  n^^■i^  ^"inj^  lllb-^^S  TJ,  "whosoever  is  for  David,  let 
him  follow  Joab";  and' Exod.  32:26,  ^bs  XTiXTb  ^'/2 ,  "whosoever 
is  for  Jahwe,  let  him  come  to  me."  It  is  noteworthy  also  that  the 
indefinite  ^'2  is  sometimes  indistinguishable  from  the  indefinite 
"'m;  cf.  Isa.  55:1,  ^Sb  "CD  lb  ^X  nm ,  "whoever  has  no 
silver — come  ye";  and  Exod.  32:24,  ^plSHtl  nHT  "pb ,  "whoever 
has  gold — strip  it  off." 


I 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ITIJS  95 

Explicative  Clauses 

135.  The  particle  "''055  quite  frequently  introduces  a  clause  which 
serves  to  specialize  or  define  a  preceding  idea  stated  indefinitely. 
The  latter  may  either  be  a  single  word  or  a  clause.  These  explicative 
or  epexegetic  clauses  have  never  received  due  recognition.  Most 
grammars  ignore  them  entirely.  To  a  certain  extent,  however,  they 
are  implicitly  recognized  by  versions  and  commentaries,  though 
there  is  lack  of  agreement  and  uniformity  in  their  treatment.  This 
arises  chiefly  from  the  fact  that,  owing  to  a  misapprehension  of  the 
true  nature  of  the  clause,  an  explicative  "itDS  is  sometimes  regarded 
as  a  simple  relative  particle. 

136.  I  shall  first  cite  those  instances  in  which  the  epexegetic 
use  of  "^IIJS  is  plain   and   unmistakable;    cf.  Ezek.  20:32,  nbl^ni 

n^;ijD  n^n:  D^-]pi<  qfix  -iipst  rrrin  ikb  rr^  niriri^-bv,  "And 

that  which  cometh  up  in  your  mind  shall  not  be  at  all  [namely] 
that  ye  are  saying,  We  will  be  as  the  heathen";  it  is  plain  at  the 
first  glance  that  the  "'uJlSi-elause  specifies  the  indefinite  nb^n  ;  Koh. 
7:29,  ^T2J;  DlStnTS  □'"bxri  Ti'X'J  I^S  ^N^^  S^r"??"! ,  ''Behold 
this  have  I  found  [namely]  that  God  made  man  upright";  Koh. 
8:14,  "There  is  [bllH]  a  vanity  which  is  done  upon  earth  [125]^  "llpyt 
D''p"''i;2],  that  there  are  righteous  unto  whom  it  happeneth  according 
to  the  work  of  the  wicked";  Koh.  9:1,  "Sb-byj  "'rin]  HT-bS-nN 
"□^p"'""^  "'"^J^)  "AH  this  I  laid  to  heart,  that  the  righteous,"  etc.; 
Neh.  2:17,  "And  I  said  unto  them.  Ye  see  [n3'"^n]  the  evil  case  we 
are  in  ...  .  ["""^rj:^  712^'  D^bllJ^";  niZJX],"  that  Jerusalem  is 
desolate  and  its  gates  broken  down";  II  Chron.  35:20,  "bS  "'^Hi^ 
"in^C^^^  7pn  ^:2JS  n^^T,  "After  all  this  [namely],  that  Josiah  had 
restored  the  temple,"  etc.;  "itp^l  is  here  not  used  temporally  in 
the  sense  of  "when."  So  R.V.  after  all  this:  "when."  Kittel: 
"Nach  alledem,  als."  The  "itjp5«{-clause  is  an  explanatory  appo- 
sition to  ni<T"b|i .  Vulg.  simplifies  by :  Postquam  instauraverat. 
Finally,  I  should  insert  here  Koh.  8:15,  "And  I  commended  mirth 

["-□J5  ■'s  '^"^^ri  nnn  wii^b  jii:"75<  "itiJb^  nr:7jUDn-nfi<],  that 

there  is  nothing  better  for  a  man  under  the  sun  than  to  eat  and 
drink."  I  think  this  is  preferable  to  "because."  The  clause  defines 
wherein  mirth  consists  rather  than  gives  the  reason  for  a  final 
judgment  on  the  supreme  good. 


90  Carl  Gaenssle 

137.  In  the  following  examples  the  "l'!2JS  is  sometimes,  erroneously 
to  mj'  mind,  regarded  as  a  relative  particle:    Exod.   18:9,  "And 

jethro  rejoiced  [T^s  bs^jj-^.b   Hin''  nir^-^tsi^  Hziian-bs  by 

C"^!!'^  1^2  ib^^n]  at  the  good  which  Jahwe  did  "unto  Israel, 
that  he  rescued  them  from  the  hand  of  the  Egyptians."  Here 
A.V.  renders  "whom  he  delivered,"  ])ecause  i  .  .  .  .  ITlJyi  may 
apparently  refer  to  "Israel"  as  its  antecedent.  However,  it  is  the 
preceding  indefinite  Hjiian  with  its  clause  that  calls  for  more  definite 
specification,  not  "Israel."  While  it  is  true  that  there  is  ultimately 
little  or  no  difference  in  the  sense,  we  feel  that  the  relative  construc- 
tion in  shifting  the  emphasis  from  "the  good"  to  the  recipient  of  the 
same  materially  weakens  the  force  of  the  sentence.  Therefore, 
R.V.,  with  truer  insight  into  the  thought,  renders  "in  that  he 
delivered  them."  So  also  Baentsch,  Kautzsch.  LXX:  on  e^etXaro 
(causal);  Vulg.:  eo,  quod  eruisset,  "in  that  he  had  delivered."  A 
parallel  passage  is  I  Sam.  24:19,  ^PS  n^TT^'  ^-lliSt.  nS;  rn^p   Fl^tl 

■:r:rn  xbn  Tj^n  nirr  ^2^sc  ^m  niit:,' "And  thou  hast  made 

known  [according  to  a  conjectural  reading  "made  great"]  the  good 
which  thou  hast  done  by  me,  that  Jahwe  delivered  me  into  thy 
hand  and  thou  didst  not  slay  me."  Here  again  the  good  con- 
sisted in  this  that  Jahwe  delivered  him  into  his  (David's)  hand  and 
yet  he  (David)  did  not  slay  him  (Saul).  So  far  as  formal  grammar 
is  concerned  "'pSC  "llJi^  might  be  rendered  "whom  he  delivered," 
making  it  refer  to  "^rilS^  as  antecedent.  But  this  would  be  awkward 
and  unnatural,  especially  in  view  of  the  intervening  HZliD .  Other 
examples  are:  Deut.  25:18,  "Remember  [pb"^^  ?jb  H'i^  ntdX  ns 
^Ci^  ^T2J5<  .  .  .  .]  what  Amalek  did  unto  thee  ....  that  he  met 
thee,"  etc.  (LXX:  ttcos  aueo-rr}  aot  .  .  .  .  ;  Vulg.:  quomodo  occurrit; 
English  versions:  "How  he  met  thee";  Kautzsch:  "Wie  er  dir 
l)egegnete";  Steuernagel  in  the  Handkommentar:  "der  dir  begegnete" 
[incorrect];  again  it  must  be  insisted  that  the  clause  is  manifestly 
intended  to  specify  the  indefinite  "what  Amalek  did");  Deut. 
28:20,  "Jahwe  will  send  upon  you  the  curse  .  .  .  .  [^h  "'jS/J 
"rriZU  IIIJS  ....  ^i'^bby?^],  because  of  the  evil  of  your  deeds, 
that  you  have  forsaken  me";  Steuernagel  correctly  renders:  "wegen 
der  Bosheit  deiner  Taten,  class  du  mich  verlassen  hast";  he  adds 
in   a   note,    "die   [sc.   die    Bosheit]    darin   besteht,   class   du   mich 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "ITIJN  97 

verlassen  hast,"  which  gives  the  sense  exactly;  freely  rendered,  the 
clause  means  simply  "in  having  forsaken  me"  (LXX:  Stort  lyKa- 
reXiTre's  ixe;  Vulg. :  in  quibus  reliqidsti  7ne;  so  also  the  English 
versions:  "whereby");  Deut.  11:4,  "what  he  did  unto  the  army  of 
Egypt,  unto  their  horses  ....  ["by  ~^C"D^  ^'r?''^^  "r^ij  "^^^ 
Dn^DB],  that  he  caused  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  to  overflow 
them "  (LXX :  cbs  iireKkvae ;  Vulg. :  quomodo;  Steuernagel  incorrectly 
adopts   the    relative    construction);    Judg.    9:17,    ^25<    DnbD    "I12JU5 

'Ijc  T-^  nsnx  bsi'^i  133:^  i^srni^  i\bp^  ^T)k;  this  clause 

attaches  to  the  indefinite  statement  of  the  preceding  verse,  "Di<1 
ib  □n"'ir^  VT  b^7^33,  "and  if  ye  have  done  according  to  the 
deserving  of  his  hands,  namely,  that  my  father  fought  for  you  and 
cast  his  life  before  him  [i.e.,  risked  his  life]  and  rescued  you  from 
the  hand  of  Midian  [and  ye  have  arisen  against  my  father's  house 
this  day,  etc.],"  the  apodosis  closing  this  long  and  involved  period 
being  added  in  vs.  19,  ...  .  "then  rejoice."  In  the  light  of  what 
has  already  been  said  in  connection  with  other  examples,  the  clause 
in  question  obviously  stands  in  an  appositional  explanatory  relation 
to  the  statement  "according  to  the  deserving  of  his  hands."  Both 
the  A.V.  and  R.V.  translate  "for  my  father  ....,"  treating  vss.  17, 
18  as  a  long  parenthesis.  Similarly  Nowack:  "denn,  fiir  euch  hat 
mein  Vater  gekampft " ;  Kautzsch :  "  ihr,  fiir  die  mein  Vater  gekampft 
hat,"  making  the  "^^^  go  back  to  the  second  person  of  the  preceding 
verbs;  Keil:  "da  doch";  Vulg.:  qui  pugnavit  pro  vobis  (omitting 
■'lis);  LXX:  cos  iraptTd^aTo  [eToXe/jLTjaep]  6  irar-qp  /jlov  virep  v/jlcop; 
Konig,  III,  385,  n.:  "Wenn  gemass  der  Leistung  seiner  Hand  ihr 
thatet:  dass  mein  Vater,"  etc.,  which  is  correct.  Further  instances 
of  the  epexegetic  use  are:  I  Sam.  15:2,  "I  will  punish  [mr3?""i'lpy>  ri5< 
ib  D^  ^TIJX  b^'i^'^b  pb-2V]  what  Amalek  did  unto  Israel,  that  he 
set  himself  against  him"  (cf.  Deut.  25:18);  I  Sam.  28:9,  "Thou 

knowest  [ni^j^ri-nj^  n^n^n  iti^s;  b^^^  niry  niiJs  nj^]  what  Saui 

has  done,  that  he  has  cut  off  the  necromancers";  here  Nowack 
renders  "der  dir  Totenbeschworer  ausgerottet  hat,"  treating  the 
clause  as  relative;  in  the  preceding  example,  however,  I  Sam.  15:2, 
he  renders,  "indem  er  sich  ihm  in  den  Weg  stellte,"  an  unnecessary 
inconsistency,  since  there  also  he  might  have  referred  "^123^  to 
Amalek  and  rendered,  "der  sich  ihm  in  den  Weg  stellte";  however, 


08  Carl  Gaenssle 

both  clauses  iire  not  rohitivo,  ])ut  explicative;  Jer.  1:1(5,  "Because 
of  their  wickedness  [^2^313?  "illJyi],  that  they  have  forsaken  me  [in 
having  forsaken  me]"  (cf.  Deut.  28:20;  Keil:  "das  Bose  besteht  in 
dem  Abfall  vom  Herrn,"  which  gives  the  exact  sense);  Jer.  32:40, 
"I  shall  make  an  everlasting  covenant  with  them  [Q^T23fi<  U^b  "^ICyi 
DrT'irX-]  that  I  will  not  turn  away  from  following  them";  Ps. 
31:8,  "I  will  he  glad  and  rejoice  [^^'.^  n^S"^  ^'^i<  ^"^Cnn]  in  thy 
favor,  that  thou  hast  looked  upon  my  affliction";  R.V.  "for"  is 
wrong;  the  clause  explains  the  general  term  "favor."  Deut.  11:6  is 
perhaps  best  placed  in  the  category  of  explicative  clauses:  "What 
he  did  unto  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the  sons  of  Eliab,  the  son  of 
Reuben  [C3?b2F.1  H^E-nS  •p&<n  nn::5  ni23i<]  [namely],  that  the 
earth  opened  her  mouth  and  devoured  them."  As  in  previous 
instances,  the  clause  specifies  the  indefinite  preceding  statement 
"what  he  did."  The  syntactic  relation  is,  however,  less  strict  than 
ordinarily,  for  the  reason  that  the  clause  has  its  own  subject 
(yisn).  Logically,  however,  it  is  Jahwe  who  causes  the  earth  to 
open  her  mouth,  so  that  it  may  properly  be  said  that  the  clause 
is  cast  in  essentially  the  same  mold  as  others  of  this  class.  By  way 
of  an  interesting  contrast,  I  insert  here  Baumann's  analysis  of  this 
verse:  "Die  Sohne  EUabs,  sie  [^IIJS  being  a  demonstrative  appo- 
sition to  "the  sons  of  Eliab"]  (von  denen  auszusagen  ist:)  die  Erde 
sperrte  ihren  Rachen  auf  und  verschlang  sie,"  etc.^  Finally,  Judg. 
9:38  and  Isa.  50:1  are  best  treated  as  explicative  clauses. 

138.  In  conclusion,  it  may  be  remarked  that  explicative  clauses 
sometimes  appear  asyndetically,  that  is  to  say,  without  the  use  of 
the  mediating  ^T2J5< ;  cf.  Ruth  4:7,  Tlb^^Tl  bv  bNi-^iz:-;^  D^DSb  nj<7l 
ib^'P  Ili'^X  "bllj  .  .  .  .  ,  "This  was  formerly  [the  custom]  in  Israel 
concerning  redeeming  ....  [that]  a  man  cast  off  his  shoe,"  etc.; 

Koh.  5:12,  vb^nb  ^^7jTi5  ^TT^  '^'2'^ri  nnn  ^n^5i;-i  nbin  nyn  iij] 

iri^"^b ,  "There  is  a  grievous  evil  that  I  have  seen  under  the  sun, 
[that]  riches  are  kept  by  the  owner  thereof  to  his  hurt"  (R.V. : 
namely,  "riches  kept,"  etc.)  (cf.  also  Koh.  5:15;  10:5-6);  Job  10:14, 
■nstsn-nx  [vs.  lS]1\'By;  nikl  ^3  ^^^11,  "l  know  that  this  was  in 
thy  mind  [that]  if  I  should  sin " 

>  Hebraische  Relativs&tze,  p.  30. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  n^!«< 


Concessive  Clauses 


139.  Simple  "ntpSI  never  introduces  a  concessive  clause.     It  may, 
however,  perform  this  function  when  coupled  with   03 .     Cf.  Neh. 

3:35,  nri^pnjs;  n7ji-  ynsti  by^^  nbr  ni<  D^Din  Qn-nirn  ds, 

"Even  though  they  build,  if  a  jackal  should  go  up,  he  shall  tear 
down  their  stone  wall."  It  seems  preferable  to  take  "1125^5  as  a  con- 
junction, though  the  relative  construction  is  most  generally  adopted. 
If  we  render  "even  that  which  they  build"  (R.V.,  Kautzsch,  Sieg- 
fried: "was  sie  auch  immer  bauen  mogen),  it  would  be  more  natural 
to  expect  a  pronominal  resumptive  in  the  main  clause  than  Pl'^in 
DH'^DnX.  Cf.  Konig,  III,  4:15E:  "Gesetzt  auch,  dass  sie  bauen"; 
Vulg. :  Aedificent:  si  ascendent  vulpes  (with  the  subjunctive  of  indif- 
ference: "Let  them  build").  This  is  the  only  instance  of  the  kind 
to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  Friedrich  (Hebr.  Conditional- 
sdtze,  p.  60)  refers  to  Koh.  8:12  as  a  second  example,  in  which,  as 
he  says,  the  03  is  separated  from  Tl2Jy5 .  But,  as  his  citation  shows, 
"he  has  overlooked  the  ^3  which  stands  in  immediate  proximity  to 
D3 .  ■'3  DB  is,  in  fact,  the  more  usual  form  of  expression;  cf.  Ps. 
23:4,  T|biJ:-^3  D3 ;  Prov.  22:6,  "fpr  ^3  03;  Hos.  8:10;  9:16; 
Isa.  1 :  15.  Occasionally  the  position  of  the  two  particles  is  reversed, 
DJ  "3;   cf.  Koh.  4:14;   8:12. 

Concessive  Relative  Clauses 

140.  There  are  a  few  instances  in  the  Old  Testament  of  relative 
clauses  with  a  concessive  connotation;  cf.  Jer.  32:35,  "And  they  built 
high  places  of  Baal  ....  to  cause  their  sons  to  pass  through  the 
fire  unto  Molech  [''D^n^^^  isb  TOX]  which  I  did  not  command 
them."  The  clause  is  the  logical  equivalent  of :  "Although  [despite 
the  fact  that]  I  did  not  command  them."  There  is  a  concessive 
or  adversative  idea  implied.  Cf.  also  Jer.  7:31;  19:5;  29:23; 
Deut.  17:3.  Jonah  4:10,  "Thou  hast  had  compassion  on  the  gourd 
[iFlb^3  Xbl  in  nb^^y  ^b  nilJSJ;],  for  which  thou  didst  not  labor," 
etc.  Again  the  sense  is,  "although  thou  didst  not,"  etc.  Cf. 
Kautzsch:  "obschon  du  dich  nicht  um  ihn  bemiiht  hast";  Esther 
4:16,  "And  thus  [referring  to  what  has  preceded]  I  will  go  in  to  the 
king  [n'l3"5<b  ^^SSt],  which  is  not  according  to  the  law,"  i.e.,  not- 
withstanding it  is  contrary  to  the  law.     In  this  case,  most  versions 


100  Carl  (Jaenssle 

abaiiclon  ihv  relative  construction  in  favor  of  a  ])uroly  concessive 
expression:  Siegfried:  "obwohl  es  gegen  das  CJesetz  ist";  Kautzsch: 
"obwohl  dies  dem  Gesetz  zuvviderliiuft";  Luther:  "wider  das 
Gebot";  Vulg.,  freely:  contra  legem  faciens;  LXX:  Trapa  tov  vofwv; 
but  A.V.,  R.V. :  "which  is  not  according  to  the  law."  In  Ps.  139: 15 
the  case  is  not  so  clear,  although  the  concessive  construction  is 
possible  and  yields  an  excellent  sense:  "My  bone  was  not  hidden 
from  thee  [■'HSQ  "Jp^W  "^'^^J'  who  was  made  in  secret,"  i.e., 
"although  I  was  made  in  secret."  The  relative  particle  refers 
back  to  the  suffix  in  "'"^^^  ("my  bone").  The  clause  is  often 
classed  as  temporal;  English  versions:  "when";  Kautzsch:  als; 
Luther :  da;  Delitzsch :  der  ich  (relative) ;  Vulg.  and  LXX :  feaisti, 
eirolrjaa^,  with  verb  in  second  person,  and  taking  "''©S  as  object; 
Targ. :   qui  fadus  sum. 

Temporal  Clauses 

141.  It  is  very  questionable  whether  ^lliyt  is  as  frequently  eni- 
ployetl  to  introduce  pure  temporal  clauses  (with  no  designation  of 
time  preceding!)  as  has  been  supposed.  Most  of  the  examples  cited 
by  GHW  are  by  no  means  decisive.  They  are  the  following:  Gen. 
40:13,  "Thou  wilt  put  the  cup  into  his  hand  ["litaS"]!!  t3Stp^3 
^np"ip?,2  f^^^V  "^^^J'  after  the  former  manner  when  thou  wast  his  cup- 
bearer"; this  may  be  correct,  and  is  at  any  rate  sufficiently  accurate 
as  concerning  the  general  sense;  but  if  t2212J7J  expresses  more  than 
simply  a  modal  idea,  if  it  denotes  the  condition  or  office  formerly 
held  by  the  cupbearer,  a  sense  which  seems  to  me  legitimate,^  then 
the  following  clause  is  attributive,  and  the  "IIIJ^^  as  the  connecting 
medium  may  be  circumscribed  somewhat  as  follows:  "which  answers 
to  the  following  description"  (cf.  Vulg.:  juxta  offidum  tuum); 
Num.  33:1,  "These  are  the  journeys  of  the  Israelites  [^S<:2^  "^ttJJi 
DnS-:ib  W'Z'^rZ  '^^^X'C],  when  [R.V.]  they  went  forth  out"  of  the 
land  of  Egypt  by  their  hosts";  here  the  temporal  idea  is  inap- 
propriate; the  clause  evidently  refers  to  journeys  and  indicates  the 
various  stages  in  the  migration  to  Canaan  (Baentsch:  "in  denen 
sie  ausgezogen  sind";    so  also  Kautzsch;    Vulg.:    qui  egressi  sunt, 

'  Clauses  in  which  ItJX  follows  a  time  designation  have  already  been  considered; 
cf.  §  82. 

"-Ct.  Judg.  13:12;    II  Kings  1:7. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^''25_S,  101 

referring  to  the  Israelites;  LXX:  cos  e^rjXdov);  I  Kings  8:9,  "There 
was  nothing  in  the  ark  save  the  two  tables  of  stone  which  Moses 
placed  there  at  Horeb"  [bsl'^Tr';  '^^"2y  n^H"  n^J  ntb^t];  here 
the  local  idea  is  at  least  just  as  probable  and  more  so,  perhaps, 
than  the  temporal:  "where  Moses  made  a  covenant  (R.V.  [margin]: 
"where";  so  also  Konig,  III,  387^,  and  Syr.;  Vulg.:  quando; 
adopting  the  reading  of  LXX,  the  clause  is  purely  relative);  Jer. 
29:19,  "Because  they  have  not  hearkened  unto  my  words  pllJi^ 
"IZl^'niSl  '^•j^^.^  T'r'^''f]>  who  sent  unto  them  my  servants  [the 
prophets]";  this  is  the  most  natural  construction,  the  relative 
attaching  to  the  suffix  in  "my  words";  Ps.  139:13  and  II  Chron. 
35:20  have  already  been  discussed.  With  the  possible  exception, 
therefore,  of  Gen.  40:13,  not  one  of  the  passages  mentioned  by 
GHW  is  unquestionably  temporal,  while  some  of  them  are  plainly 
of  another  type.  Equally  uncertain  are  three  other  passages,  in 
which  the  ^  u3S  is  sometimes  regarded  as  doing  the  duty  of  a  temporal 
conjunction.  The  first,  Ps.  41:9,  "An  evil  disease  has  befallen  [is 
cast  upon]  him"  [D^pb  "Ti^-J^b  Z?p  "i^J^SI],  Konig  (III,  3S7g) 
regards  as  a  temporal  clause;  so  also  A.V.,  R.V.:  "Now  that  he 
lieth,  he  shall  rise  no  more";  Baethgen  and  Kautzsch:  "Wer  sich 
einmal  gelegt  hat"  (indefinite  relative  pronoun);  so  also  Aq.:  os  av 
KOLjjLrjdrj ;  this  is  the  simplest  and  most  natural  rendering.  The 
clause  would  seem  to  be  of  a  proverbial  character.  The  second 
passage  is  Ps.  69:5,  n^^X  TX  "nbjrxb  ni^JN .  Konig  takes  ^ipfi< 
in  the  sense  of  dann,  wann,  with  TX  as  correlative  (III,  387g'). 
But  "when  I  have  not  taken  away,  then  I  must  restore"  seems  an 
unnatural  form  of  expression;  possibly  the  text  is  corrupt  and  instead 
of  TNi  we  should  read  "'DX;  the  verse  would  then  run:  "what 
.  .  .  .  taken  awaj^,  I  must  restore";  but  the  LXX  reads  755  (d 
ovK  ripiraaa  Tore  aTreTLvvvov);  so  also  Vulg.:  quae  non  rapid  nunc 
exsolvebam.  Baethgen  explains:  "Damals  als  die  unverdiente 
Feindschaft  den  Sanger  traf,  gait  von  ihm  das  Sprichwort,  dass  er 
zuriickgeben  musste,  was  er  nicht  geraubt  hatte."  However  the 
TX  may  be  disposed  of,  the  "lllJX-clause  is  doubtless  relative.  The 
third  uncertain  passage.  Gen.  30:38,  "He  placed  the  rods  which  he 
had  peeled  in  the  watering  troughs  [nimiJb  "SSin  ^^^ZiT\  ni!JX] 
where  the  flocks  came  to  drink."     So  R.V.,  which,  in  view  of  what 


U)'J  Caul  (Jaensslp: 

we  luivc  seen  conceruiiifj;  the  use  of  "'"^IJi^  in  teniporiil  clauses,  is  to 
be  preferred  to  "when."  The  local  conception  has  been  generally 
preferred  (Kautzsch,  Delitzsch,  Gunkel,  Syr.),  while  Konig  and 
\\'ynkooi)  favor  the  temporal. 

Modal  Clauses 

142.  Gesenius-Kautzsch  cites  a  numl)er  of  passages  in  which 
"^lSS  is  said  to  take  the  place  of  "''0^53  as  a  comparative  conjunction 
(cf.  §  161).  Let  us  look  at  these  passages.  In  Exod.  10:6  the 
"'TIJS  is  declared  to  be  the  equivalent  of  quemadmodum.  We  have 
already-  discussed  this  verse;  cf.  §  87,  where  it  is  stated  that  the 
"UJS- clause  refers  to  the  entire  preceding  statement  concerning  the 
plague,  ami  this  accords  best  with  the  sense.  In  Exod.  14:13, 
CnS^b  ISC'n  Xb  Orn  D^^^p-nX  Dn^5<"i  ^lliS  ^3,  ''for  as  ye  see 
the  Egyptians  to-day  ye  shall  see  them  no  more,"  "^TIJN  is  hardly 
a  conjunction  equivalent  to  quemadmodum  or  bv  rpoTrov  (LXX). 
Rather  is  it  the  equivalent  of  quales,  "such  as."  The  clause 
expresses  state  or  condition,  not  manner.  The  sense  is  that  this 
is  the  last  time  that  the  Egyptians  shall  appear  in  the  character 
of  vigorous,  menacing  warriors.  The  rendering  of  Vulg.,  quos 
'nunc  videtis,  and  Keil,  "die  Agypter  welche  ihr  heute  seht"  (with 
attraction  of  the  antecedent),  though  grammatically  possible,  is 
devoid  of  force.  In  Exod.  34:18,  "Seven  days  shalt  thou  eat 
unleavened  bread  ["P'^l^  "'''^^l,  as  I  commanded"  (Vulg.:  sicut 
praecepi;  LXX:  Kaddirep),  some  MSS  read  1123X3.  The  modal 
idea  may  be  accepted  here.  Nevertheless,  it  is  possible  to  regard 
ITIJi^  as  a  relative  particle  with  the  entire  preceding  sentence  as 
antecedent;  cf.  examples  where  the  particle  is  thus  employed, 
§  83.  These  are  the  examples  instanced  by  Gesenius-Kautzsch ; 
they  are  also  adopted  by  Konig.  It  will  be  seen  that  they  are  inde- 
cisive as  establishing  the  comparative-modal  use  of  the  particle. 
For  sake  of  completeness  I  shall  briefly  discuss  a  few  other  similar 

cases:  Isa.  54:9,  li:-"  n'rr;  'iziTz  "n:?ni2iD  nia^  ^b  nsT  -b  ^-2  ^3 

""|D  y^y^n'by ,  "For  the  waters  of  Noah  is  this  unto  me;  as  I 
have  sworn  that  the  waters  of  Noah  shall  no  more  go  over  the  earth, 
so  [have  I  sworn,  etc.]";  this  the  usual  rendering.  Here  it  is  to 
be  remarked  in  the  first  place  that  there  is  some  manuscript  and 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ni23N  103 

abundant  versional  authority  (Sym.,  Theod.,  Syr.,  Targ.,  Vulg.) 
for  reading  "'/^^S ,  "as  the  days,"  instead  of  ^'^2  "'3.  But  if  this 
reading,  which  is  decidedly  preferable,  be  adopted,  the  following 
Itpy;  maj'  very  easily  and  naturally  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  "when." 
Vide  supra  for  this  common  usage  of  the  particle  after  designations 
of  time.  "Like  the  days  of  Noah  is  this  unto  me  when  I  sware," 
etc.  As  for  the  following  "S ,  it  cannot  be  objected  that  this  demands 
a  correlative;  cf.  Isa.  55:9,  where  no  correlative  expression  precedes. 
Consequently,  there  is  no  necessity  whatever  for  assuming  that 
ni2Ji<  does  the  duty  of  H^KS  in  our  passage.     In  Jer.  33:22,   ^tpS 

T7  ^^r'^^  ns")s  -J  ..'.'.  oriTsri  i^n::  ^5S";-sb,  "as  the  host 

of  heaven  cannot  be  numbered,  so  will  I  multiply  the  seed  of  David," 
if  the  text  be  accepted  as  it  stands,  we  have  here  an  undoubled 
comparative-modal  use  of  ltpy5 .  But  it  is  doubtful  if  TuJNt  is  original. 
At  any  rate,  the  rendering  of  Syr.,  Theod.,  Targ.,  Vulg.  seems  to 
favor  an  original  "11l3si3 ,  though  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that, 
granted  the  "I'^^i^  be  original,  these  versions  might  still  have  used  a 
distinctively  comparative  mode  of  expression  for  the  sake  of  clearness. 
But  the  general  usus  loquendi  seems  to  decide  against  the  originality 
of  "n2Jy|.  Jer.  48:8  is  still  less  decisive.  The  IIDJSJ  may  be  causal, 
or  it  may  be  simply  the  relative  particle.  Giesebrecht  cancels  as 
dittography.  Our  conclusion,  therefore,  is  that  a  strictly  modal  use 
of  "^ipS  in  comparative  sentences  cannot  be  shown  to  exist  in  Old 
Testament  Hebrew. 

143.  There  are,  however,  a  few  passages  in  which  lUJi^  performs 
the  function  of  a  conjunctive  modal  adverb;  cf.  I  Kings  14:19, 
"The  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jeroboam  [7\T2  nUJS"!  Dnbp  ^^i^},  how 
he  warred  and  how  he  reigned  [behold,  they  are  written,  etc.]."  It 
is  plain  here  that  TOi^  must  have  a  conjunctive-adverbial  force 
expressing  manner.  By  this  is  not  meant,  of  course,  that  any  such 
meaning  was  inherent  in  the  particle  as  such.  It  is  only  the  sense 
and  the  context  that  decide  the  peculiar  force  of  TOSi  in  any  given 
case.  In  the  present  instance  it  is  evident  that  a  mere  statement  of 
fact,  i.e.,  that  the  king  made  war  and  particularly  that  he  reigned, 
would  be  wholly  futile;  cf.  Vulg.:  quomodo  pugnaverit  et  quomodo 
regnaverit.  The  case  is  diiferent  in  II  Kings  14:15,  "the  rest  of  the 
acts  of  Joash  which  he  did  and  his  power  f  ^"^II'^S  U:?  QnbD  "^llJiil], 


U)4  Caul  (Jaknwslf: 

and   how  ho  foujiht    with  Ainaziah "     Here   tlic   ^12Ji<   may 

simi)ly  mean  that,  intrcxluoinK  tlic  statement  tliat  Joash  waged  war 
with  Amaziah.  Vulg.,  omitting  the  1,  joins  illJN  with  might  and 
renders:  fortitiido  eius,  qua  pugnavit;  cf.  vs.  28,  OrbD  "i123&i  "iri^^Zj. 
But  even  here  the  clause  is  hardly  relative,  modifying  iri"^^33 ,  but 
adverbial,  as  in  the  first  example.  Gen.  30:29,  ^123s  n&<  n^'1' 
Tj-riizy ,  "thou  knowest  iiow  I  served  thee,"  expresses  manner  and 
not  mere  fact;  cf.  §77;  Vulg.:  quomodo  servierimtihi.  But  1123S  HS 
may  also  be  equivalent  to  an  inner  or  cognate  accusative. 

1I2JS  Recitatirum 

144.  Sometimes  the  particle  ^l^N*  serves  to  introduce  direct 
discourse.  It  then  takes  the  place  of  "S ,  which  is  more  ordinarily 
employed.  This  usage  is  very  rare.  Even  among  the  few  instances 
generally  pointed  out,  some  admit  of  another  construction:  cf.  I 
Sam.  15:20,  "And  Saul  said  unto  Samuel  [mn^  bpn  T}:^'!^  niZJX], 
I  have  obeyed  the  voice  of  Jahwe."  The  '^123X  is  here,  in  my 
opinion,  nothing  else  than  an  introductory  particle.  Syr.  leaves  it 
unexpressed;  Nowack:  "  ^ip5<  dient  zur  Einfiihrung  der  directen 
Rede."  More  generally,  however,  it  is  regarded  as  an  asseverative 
particle.  R.V.:  "Yea,  I  have  obeyed  ....";  Vulg.:  Immo 
audivi.  Budde  (SBOT),  unwilling  to  admit  this  use  of  ^'^2j^< ,  con- 
jectures "jX.  We  can  safely  say  that  so  weak  and  indefinite  a 
particle  as  "ilipt^  can  never  have  been  employed  to  lend  force  and 
emphasis  to  a  statement.  Nor  is  there  any  such  idea  required  by 
the  context.  Other  instances  are:  II  Sam.  1:4,  "He  said  ["ni25X 
D^n  C2],  The  people  fled";  so  generally  (LXX:  elireu  on  t(f)vyev 
[on  is  ambiguous];  Vulg.,  Kautzsch,  Nowack,  Driver,  et  al.);  Konig 
(III,  374c)  remarks  that  the  clause  may  be  a  "Referat  des 
Historikers " ;  while  this  is  possible,  it  is  hardly  probable;  the  vivid- 
ness of  the  narrative  favors  direct  discourse;  II  Sam.  2:4,  ^lit^T 
b^S'iJ-nS  ^^Zj:  ntps;  -;;>-b3  ^Z";  -l2J:s;  niat^b  lllb,  "And  they  told 
David  saying.  The  men  of  Jabesh-Gilead  were  they  that  buried 
Saul";  so  R.V.,  which  I  hold  to  be  correct.  This  leaves  the  text 
as  it  is,  and  is  grammatically  possible.  It  is  generally  assumed 
that  ^ipX  is  misplaced,  its  proper  position  being  supposedly  after 
^bxb .     But  this  would  l)e  the  only  instance  in  the  Old  Testament 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^123S  105 

where  ISi^b  ,  which,  as  is  well  known,  is  employed  again  and  again 
to  introduce  direct  discourse,  would  be  followed  by  an  unnecessarily 
redundant  "^115^5 .  It  is  thought  that  the  LXX  Xeyoz^res  otl  favors 
the  view  of  a  misplacement  of  "^^^5 .  But  this  rendering  proves 
nothing,  otl  could  easily  have  been  employed  as  an  introductory 
particle,  even  though  "i"05<  always  occupied  its  present  position. 
As  for  the  construction  of  the  sentence  in  its  present  form,  we 
have  an  exact  analogy,  e.g.,  in  the  Assyrian;  cf.  Dariamus 
sa  bita  aga  epus,  "Darius  is  he  that  has  built  this  house." 
"Der  Relativsatz  bildet  das  Pradikat"  (Kraetzschmar,  BA,  I, 
426).  And  just  so  in  our  verse.  Cf.  Zech.  13:6,  "And  one  shall 
say.  What  are  these  wounds  between  thy  hands?  and  he  shall  say 
[^nni!<72  n^S  "t^'Sn  1^^],  I  was  beaten  in  the  house  of  my  lovers." 
This  is  at  any  rate  possible,  though  "^TIJJ^  has  been  variously  treated. 
LXX  with  slavish  hterality:  as  iirXmv ;  Vulg.:  His  plagatus 
sum;  R.V.:  "Those  with  which";  Nowack  considers  "itSi^  as 
purely  introductory.  I  prefer  this  view,  though  it  is  not  the  only 
possible  one — "IIIJ!!^  may  be  causal.  In  this  case,  the  sentence  must 
be  regarded  as  elliptical,  the  thought  to  be  supplied  from  the  context 
being  "  I  have  these  wounds,"  to  which  the  niTJ^-clause  would  furnish 
the  reason.  Neh.  4:6  is  also  sometimes  referred  to  (Siegfried)  as 
containing  an  instance  of  "^^^5  redtativum  but  the  syntax  is  doubtful. 

b)    "I1I3S   IN    COMPOUNDS 

145.  BOB  says:  "Combined  with  prepositions,  TC5<  converts 
them  into  conjunctions."  This  is,  of  course,  a  well-known  fact. 
But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  "^^^^  is,  as  a  rule,  not  indispen- 
sable. Prepositions  as  such  may  subordinate  an  entire  clause,  in 
other  words  assume  the  function  of  a  conjunction.  "Statt  des 
vermittelnden  ^123^?  tritt  der  ganze  folgende  Satz  als  ein  Substan- 
tivbegriff  unter  die  unmittelbare  Rektion  der  Praposition."i  Indeed, 
in  some  cases  the  preposition  used  as  a  conjunction  is  never  accom- 
panied by  nm,  e.g.,  D-lt:S  and  7S;72 .  Cf.  Ps.  90:2,  Q^pS 
rnr  D^'nn,  "before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth";  Exod. 
5:23,    's"bi<  ^nsn  l^'Z,    "since    I    came    to    Pharaoh."      Q'^IfllL 

1  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  §  104c;  cf.  also  Stade,  p.  225;  Olshausen,  pp.  441  f.;  Konig. 
II.  327  f. 


106  Carl  (Iaenssle 

TJpS  or  "ly^S  TX'p  arc  not  found.  On  tlio  otlior  liand,  some  prepo- 
sitions are  only  in  the  rarest  instances  used  immediately  as  conjunc- 
tions. Thus  "2  in  Deut.  33:11,  r^^p^-"J ,  "that  they  rise  not 
up,"  where  "P  is  equivalent  to  '^XO^'Z  .  Olshausen  further  instances 
&<^n""p  in  Isa.  18:2:  "wo  das  ....  X^n  die  Stelle  eines  ganzen 
Satzes  vertritt."  So  also  Cheyne:  "since  it  arose."  Delitzsch 
and  Duhm  take  the  expression  locally,  the  former  declaring  that 
J<"r;"7;  cannot  be  used  for  J^^n  '^lIJSp .  But  this  takes  for 
granted  the  very  thing  that  is  under  discussion.  The  temporal- 
conjunctional  sense  is  best  suited  to  the  context.  The  preposition 
b  is  probably  never  found  as  a  conjunction,  'rirb  in  I  Kings  6:19 
is  plainly  a  scribal  error.  But  in  Gen.  30:41  Olshausen  would  read 
(vielleicht)  Tu'irr^  instead  of  HS/jn^b ,  thus  making  b  introduce 
a  finite  verb.  2l  is  employed  as  a  conjunction  in  Lam.  4:14,  U^bSl 
^bDV  ;  cf.  Konig,  HI,  395e.  Is  3  ever  used  for  ntUXS  ?  This  is 
almost  uniformly  denied.  Delitzsch  remarks  on  Job.  7:2:  "3 
kann  nie  einen  Vergleichungssatz  einfiihren  ausser  einen  infiniti- 
vischen  ....  geradezu  steht  es  nie  fiir  '^1IJN!3 ."  So  most  of  the 
grammars.  But  Konig  (III,  388rf)  puts  his  finger  on  at  least  one 
passage  in  which  3  introduces  a  comparative  clause,  viz.,  Jer.  31 :  10, 
"He  shall  keep  it  [iT^lT]  [i^iy  riyi3]  as  a  shepherd  [sc.  nbllj";] 
his  flock."  This  is  the  most  natural  and  obvious  construction.  I 
also  think  that  Konig  is  right  when  he  remarks  on  Obad.,  vs.  16, 
TTl  if,b'3 ,  that  "als  waren  sie  nicht  gewesen"  is  "  geistreicher " 
than  "wie  solche,  die  nicht  existiert  haben."  In  other  words,  the 
view  that  3  is  a  conj unction  =  "^^N>3  deserves  the  preference  to  the 
other  which  regards  the  clause  as  relative.  So  also  Nowack:  "Als 
waren  sie  nicht  gewesen,"  and  G.  A.  Smith:  "As  though  they  had 
not  been";  cf.  Job  10:19,  rrtl^  ^n^^H  5^b  ^1I3S3 ,  "I  should  have 
been  as  though  I  had  not  been."  There  are  other  passages  which 
plainly  show  that  the  dividing  line  between  3  and  "ItdSS  was  at 
least  partially  obliterated;  cf.  I  Chron.  17:9  (11  Sam.  7:10),  "The 
children  of  wickedness  shall  not  waste  them  any  more  [^'OStS 
nrcS^n],  as  at  first";  Jer.  33:7,  "I  will  build  them  [nru:&<"ia3],  as 
at  first";  cf.  also  Jer.  33:11;  Isa.  1:26,  "I  will  restore  thy  judges 
[r;;-X"33]  and  thy  counselors  [JlbnrinS]  as  at  the  beginning." 
The  same  promiscuous  use  is  noticeable  also  after  nominal  sentences ; 


The  Hebrew  Particle  '^T23&^  107 

cf.  I  Kings  13:6,  "And  the  king's  hand  was  restored  again  prini 
nD'"ffi"j5";n3],  and  it  became  as  it  was  before";  Gen.  41:21,  ''Their 
appearance  was  evil  [nbnri^  "itZJiJia]  as  it  was  before." 

146.  If,  then,  3  and  ^ilJSiB  are  at  times  used  interchangeably, 
we  are  justified  in  re-examining  a  certain  class  of  passages  in  which 
the  conjunctional  character  of  3  is  commonly  denied.  Such  examina- 
tion has  made  it  clear  to  me  that  3  is  often  treated  as  a  preposition, 
where  in  reality  it  is  a  conjunction.  What  are  evidently  two  distinct 
types  of  sentence  are  promiscuously  thrown  together.  For  the 
sake  of  illustration,  I  shall  call  attention  to  a  few  passages:  Job 
11:16,  "For  thou  wilt  forget  misery  [hlZ'J]  ["tTTl  ^^n^  n^'2'2], 
thou  wilt  remember  it  as  waters  [that]  have  passed  away";  Jer. 
23:29,  "Is  not  my  word  Hke  a  fire  [:?bc  ybSS-;  tlJ^tOSS!!]  and  hke  a 
hammer  [that]  breaketh  the  rock  in  pieces?"  It  is  plain  here  that 
3  is  not  a  conjunction,  since  the  things  compared  are  in  each  case 
two  mere  substantives.  3  belongs  only  to  the  word  to  which  it  is 
immediately  prefixed.  But  now  let  us  look  at  some  other  passages, 
which  are  cast  in  a  different  mold :  Job  7 : 2,  ....  b^  "i^"'^''.  "??^ 
"''rivMDn  "3,  "as  the  servant  panteth  for  the  shadow,  so  am  I 
made  heir  [to  months  of  wretchedness]";  Ps.  42:2,  J^VPt  b^SlS 
"jh?n  ^'053  -3  nr^-^j:"SS  by,  "as  the  hind  panteth  after  the 
water  brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul  [after  thee,  O  God]."  It  will  be 
seen  that  in  these  two  examples  it  is  not  so  much  the  subjects  that 
are  paralleled,  but  rather  the  two  actions  expressed  by  the  verb. 
If  we  insist  that  the  first  member  of  the  verse  last  quoted  be  rendered, 
"Like  the  hind  [that]  panteth,"  etc.,  the  second  member  should 
consistently  be  rendered,  "so  [is]  my  soul  [that]  panteth,"  etc. 
This  alone  will  save  the  concinnity  of  thought  and  expression.  To 
put  it  differently,  if  "3  belongs  to  the  second  verb,  3  belongs  to 
the  first.  Further  examples  illustrating  these  two  kinds  of  sentences 
can  easily  be  found;  cf.  Hos.  6:3;  Isa.  62:1;  Ps.  125:1;  83:15-16; 
Isa.  61:11. 

147.  Whatever  view  one  holds  with  reference  to  the  function  of 
3,  it  remains  true,  upon  the  whole,  that  "^^^  is  not  an  essential 
element  in  the  so-called  compound  conjunctions.  As  in  English, 
the  same  particle  may,  as  a  rule,  perform  the  functions  both  of  a 
preposition  and  of  a  conjunction;  cf.  "after  his  arrival"  and  "after 


108  Carl  (Iaenssle 

hv  had  arrived."  And,  to  carry  the  comparisons  a  step  farther, 
the  Hebrew  ■"u^^|> ,  when  united  with  a  preposition,  was  felt  probably 
to  be  no  more  specific  or  significant  than  the  conjunctional  affix 
"that,"  which,  especially  in  older  Enghsh,  often  follows  the  (prepo- 
sitional) conjunction;  cf.  "The  word  of  Jahwe  came  to  Jeremiah, 
after  that  the  king  had  burned  the  roll";  "Before  that  Abraham 
was,  I  am"  (Wyd.  John  8:58).  So  also  "ere  that,"  "till  that," 
"since  that,"  etc.  And  further,  just  as  in  Hebrew  the  "^lliS  may  not 
always  be  dispensed  with,  so  this  conjunctional  affix  "that,"  though 
it  has  almost  disappeared  from  modern  English,  still  maintains  its 
place  in  certain  connections;  cf.  "in  that"  (German  indeni).  "In" 
alone  never  subordinates  a  sentence.  To  acquire  conjunctional 
force  it  must  unite  itself  with  "that";  cf.  "Let  him  die,  in  that  he 
is  a  fox."  This  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  "''ONtlll ,  used  as  a  causal 
conjunction. 

148.  We  shall  now  take  up  the  various  compounds  in  which  "i'!IJX 
appears  as  an  element.  By  far  the  most  common  is  "ItbSli ,  which 
occurs  hundreds  of  times  throughout  the  Old  Testament.  We  may, 
therefore,  begin  with  a  discussion  of  the  grammatical  phenomena 
connected  with  it. 

"I'ilJiO  in  Comparative  Clauses 

149.  There  are  many  passages  in  which  the  "I'^^i  does  not  unite 
with  3  to  form  a  compound  conjunction  (to  retain  the  conventional 
phraseology),  but  in  which  it  performs  its  ordinary  function  as  a 
relative  particle;  cf.  Gen.  27:4,  "Make  me  savory  food  [112S3 
"Fiinyt],  such  as  I  love"  (lit.  "according  to  what  I  love");  Gen. 
41:21,  "Their  appearance  was  evil  [n5nriS  ^tb^53]  as  at  first" 
("according  to  what  [it  was]  at  first").  Sometimes  the  copulative 
verb  is  added;  cf.  Isa.  11:16,  "There  shall  be  a  highway  for  the 
remnant  of  his  people  [bx^TC";b  ^lt^''^\  '^'12JS3],  like  the  one  that 
was  for  Israel";  Josh.  14:7,  "I  brought  him  word  again  ["''UpNlS 
"22!^  D3'']  as  it  was  in  my  heart";  Josh.  14:11,  "I  am  yet  strong 
to-day  [^ni5<  n'b'JJ  nr3.  I^SS]  as  I  was  on  the  day  that  [Moses] 
sent  me";  Judg. '  11 :36',  "Do  unto  me  [^"E^J  ^5^;^  '^^^^]  accord- 
ing to  that  which  hath  proceeded  from  thy  mouth"  (R.V.);  I  Sam. 
24:5,  "Thou  shalt  do  unto  him  [^T?^  ^P^"!  ^^^?]  according 
to  what  is  good  in  thine  eyes";    II  Kings  7:7,  "They  left  .... 


The  Hebrew  Particle  11IJJ5  109 

their  camp  [X^H  "It23i<3]  as  it  was/'  i.e.,  "according  to  what  [con- 
dition] it  had  been'';  II  Kings  7:10,  ".  .  .  .  the  tents  ptpNtS 
n^QH]";  Job  29:4,  ^n^M  ^^3 ,  "according  to  what  I  was";  Isa. 
24': 2,  in  «t;3D  ^mS  ri^2^',  "as  with  the  creditor,  so  with  the 
debtor";  the  retrospective  12  plainly  shows  the  relative  character 
of  ^'m;  Jer.  18:4,  "He  shall  make  it  another  vessel  pT2J^  ^"L5^5^ 
"'Ty^]  according  to  one  that  is  right  in  the  eyes  of  .  .  .  .";  Ezek. 
41:25,  "They  were  made  [D'TiE3?  "^'^^f^S]  like  as  were  made"  [R.V.], 
i.e.,  "like  those  that  were  made";  I  Kings  21:11,  nin|  ni23S;3 
D"''^£02l ,  "according  to  what  was  written  in  the  letters";  Koh.  9:3, 
J^"i;'TOmr  ^irS?,  "as  one  that  feareth  an  oath";  Dan.  9:13, 
2in3  ■'t:S;3;  Koh.  5:14,  nVJJ;  Din>  ....  5<"^^  "^^^^ ,  "as  he 
came  forth,  naked  shall  he  return  again";  the  significance  of  "''05^ 
is  here  plainly  indicated  by  01"^^  in  the  main  clause;  "^TliSlS  means 
literally  "as  what,"  i.e.,  "in  what  condition  or  character,"  qualis; 
Koh.  8:7,  ib  Ty  r2  Tl';r\^_  "^'^^il?,  "how  [i.e.,  as  what]  it  shall  be 
who  will  tell  him?";  Koh.  9:2,  Vsb  n'iJSlS  bSH ,  "everything  [is] 
according  to  what  [happens]  to  all,"  i.e.,  "all  things  come  ahke  to 
all"  (R.V.). 

150.  Also  in  the  following  passages,  in  which  "'IIJSlS  is  followed 
by  transitive  verbs,  it  is  possible  that  "^jp^i  retained  more  or  less  its 
pronominal  function.  At  any  rate,  ''tpi^S  easily  resolves  itself 
into  "according  to,"  "in  correspondence  or  conformity  to  that 
which."  That  "^llJyi  had  not  so  far  coalesced  with  the  3  as  to  form 
an  integral  part  of  the  compound  (in  spite  of  close  external  union) 
seems  to  be  plainly  indicated  by  at  least  one  passage:  Isa.  14:24, 
D^pn  J^'H  ^ri:i?^  '^'^^'^,  "according  to  what  I  have  purposed 
that  shall  stand."  The  resumptive  S'"  points  back  to  ^"ip&5  as  in 
ordinary  relative  clauses.  The  ordinary  mode  of  emphatic  resump- 
tion is,  however,  to  use  "p  as  in  the  first  part  of  the  same  verse. 
Just  what  was  the  living  Sprachgefuhl  in  these  cases  we  can  no  longer 
positively  determine.  The  English  idiom,  of  course,  prefers  "as" 
or  "according  as." 

151.  Examples  of  the  class  under  consideration  are  exceedingly 
common.     Thus  ''ilJS!?  is  found  very  frequently: 

a)  With  mI^,  "command":  cf.  Gen.  7:9,  "Two  and  two  they 
came  to  Noah   [D^nb5<  n^'l  ^1?^53],  according  to  what  [as]   God 


110  Caul  Gaenssle 

cominandcd";  vs.  Ki;  Kxod.  12:28,  "The  Isniclites  did  plIJNS 
m~"  n*;i],  according  to  what  .lalnvo  commanded";  16:24;  23:15; 
34:4;  Lev.  8:4;  8:9,13,31;  9:1,21;  10:15,18;  Num.  26:4;  27:11, 
22;  31:7.  31.  41,  47;  32:25;  Deut.  1:19;  4:5;  5:12,  16,  29,  etc. 
It  is  aLso  found  with  the  pji-ssive:  Ezek.  24:18;  37:7,  ^n^l  ^^&<3. 
6)  With  -Z":  cf.  On.  12:4,  "And  Abraham  went  pllJSiS 
'"^Sl],  according  to  what  [as]  Jahwe  had  said";  17:23;  24:19; 
Exod.  1:17;  7:13,  22;  8:11;  9:12,  35;  12:25,  32;  Num.  5:4; 
14:17;    17:5;   23:2;    27:23;    32:27;    Deut.  1 :11,  21;    2:1,  etc. 

c)  With  ■"•^K:  cf.  Gen.  21:1,  "And  Jahwe  visited  Sarah  pT25&it3 
1-^S]  as  he  had  said";  43:17;  Num.  23:30;  Josh.  11:9,  "And 
Joshua  did  unto  them  [nin"  ib'T^X  "^'i'SlS]  as  Jahwe  said  unto 
him";  IIKings8:19;  Joel3:5;  Amos5:14;  Neh.5:12;  IlChron.  21:7. 

d)  With  y^t:  cf.  Gen.  50:6,  "Go  up  and  bury  thy  father 
[TjJ'"  ^"J2n  "''JJNli],  according  to  what  [as]  he  caused  thee  to  swear " ; 
Exod.  13:11;  Deut.  2:14;  13:18;  19:8;  26:15;  29:12;  Josh. 
6:22;  Judg.  2:15. 

e)  With  TiWS :  cf.  Gen.  8:21,  "I  shall  no  more  smite  every 
living  thing  [■'in"'iC3''  ^'!lJi|t3],  according  to  what  [as]  I  have  done"; 
Lev.  4:20;  16:15;' 24:23;  Num.  21:34;  Deut.  2:12,  22,  29;  3:2, 
6;  Josh.  4:23;  8:2;  10:1,  28,  30;  23:8;  24:5;  Judg.  15:10;  I 
Kings  11:38;  II  Kings  8:18;  21:3,  20;  Jer.  7:14;  44:17;  Ezek. 
12:11;  16:48;  24:22;  Zech.  7:3;  Ruth  1:8;-  Dan.  9:12,  nmS 
nn'^ry:  (with  passive) ;   IlChron.  21:6. 

'/)  With  "NT:  cf.  Exod.  27:8,  ^jm  nS^n  ^tDS3 ,  "according 
to  what  one  [indefinite  subject]  has  caused  thee  to  see,  as  has  been 
shown  thee";  Job.  4:8,  "ri^IJ^"^  "^'^^?  ,  "according  to  what  I  have 
seen,"  i.e.,  "according  to  my  experience";  Jer.  42:2;  II  Chron. 
29:8;  30:7;   II  Kings  2:19. 

g)    With  T2'^:   cf.  I  Sam.  23:11;  Jer.  26:11. 

h)    WithHDS:  cf.  Gen.  40:22;  41:13. 

i)    With  D/JT:   cf.  Deut.  19:19. 

j)    WithniD:  cf.  Deut.  23:24. 

k)    With  nbT2J  =  command :  cf.  I  Kings  21: 11. 

I)     With  ysr  :  cf .  Jonah  1 :  14. 

m)  With  bb?:  cf.  Lam.  1:22. 

n)    Withn:^!:   cf.  Num.  33:56;  Isa.  14:24. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  '^'IIJN  111 

152.  When  there  is  no  reference  to  an  actual  fact,  but  where 
the  idea  is  general  and  indefinite,  ">  up^|13  is  equivalent  to  "according  to 
whatever."  The  action  expressed  by  the  verb  being  in  such  cases 
merely  potential,  the  tense  employed  is  naturally  the  imperfect. 
Cf.  Gen.  34:12,  "I  will  give  [^''^NP  "^125X2]  according  to  whatever 
you  may  command  (R.V.:  "according  as  ye  shall  say";  LXX: 
KadoTL  av  elirrjTe);  Gen.  44:1,  "Fill  the  sacks  ....  ['^bpV  ni23&5;3 
nyjir],  according  to  whatever  they  may  be  able  to  carry"  (R.V. : 
"as  much  as  they  can  carry";  LXX:  ocra  eav  bvvoiVTai  apat;  Vulg.: 
Quantum  possunt  capere);  Exod.  8:23,  "We  will  go  ...  .  and  offer 
a  sacrifice  [^rbS!  TiS"'  iTJiSS],  according  to  whatever  he  may  com- 
mand us";  Num.  22:8,  "I  will  bring  you  word  again  P^T  ^iTXS 
mn"'],  according  to  whatever  Jahwe  may  say"  (LXX:  airoKpidrjaoixai 
vjxiv  Tpdyixara  a  av  \d\rj<Tr}  Kvpvos;  Vulg.:  Quidquid  mihi  dixerit 
Dominus;  Kautzsch:  "je  nachdem  Jahwe  mich  anweisen  wird," 
which  hits  the  sense  exactly);  I  Sam.  2:16,  "Take  for  thyself 
[?i"JpS!  n^Sri  ^u3^<?],  according  to  whatever  thy  soul  may  desire" 
(R.V.:  "as  much  as  thy  soul  desireth";  Vulg.:  Quantumcumque 
desiderat);  Jer.  39:12;  Ezek.  46:7;  Deut.  16:10;  I  Sam.  24:5; 
Lev.  27:14. 

153.  The  imperfect  may,  of  course,  also  be  used  when  the  idea 
is  not  indefinite.  In  this  case,  it  denotes  simple  futurity  or  customary 
and  repeated  action.  Cf .  Judg.  7 :  17,  "VJjyri  "3  "ll'^X  ""^XS  ,  "as 
I  shall  do,  so  shall  ye  do";  Isa.  10:11;    I  Sam.  24:14;  Exod.  5:13. 

154.  Regarding  the  external  form  of  these  comparative  sentences, 
the  principal  proposition,  without  any  accompanying  correlative, 
ordinarily  precedes  the  subordinate  clause  introduced  by  ''TjpNlB . 
There  are,  however,  many  divergent  arrangements  determined 
for  the  most  part  by  a  striving  for  emphasis.  Thus:  (a)  The  ^1^3X3- 
clause  may  precede  the  main  sentence;  cf.  Lev.  8:34,  »Tir^  "^tbSiS 
XWyb  T'l^TT  n|l!i  .  .  .  .  ,  "as  has  been  done  [indefinite  subject]  .... 
[so]  Jahwe  commanded,"  etc.;  II  Kings  17:41,  ....  fe"  H^JJlS 
"W'^y  on ;  Jonah  1 :  14,  n^'ip:?  n^S"  n'^XS  .  (b)  The  ^TlJSS-clause 
precedes,  while  the  principal  clause  is  introduced  by  "3 ;  cf.  Lev. 
24:19,  ib  nipr  -,3  ri'^y  '^^^^,  "as  he  has  done,  so  shall  it  be 
done  unto  him";  Num.  14:28,  HirJ^S!  "3  UrnD.1  ^'p^^ ,  "as  you 
have  said,  so  will  I  do";   Num.  36:10;   Josh!  10:39;'  Judg.  1:7; 


112  Carl  Gaenssle 

7:17;  II  Sam.  3:9;  IKins^l:30;  2:38;  Isa.  10:11;  14:24;  Ezek. 
12:11.  (c)  The  principal  clause  precedes,  with  "3  following  the 
verb;  cf.  Exod.  7: 10,  riirr  ri^l  "IIJSS  "S  to';'],  "and  did  so,  as 
Jahwe  had  commanded";  Exod.  7:20;  Josh.  4:8;  Ezek.  12:7;  Gen. 
50:12,  ...  .  ^12JSt3  "S  lb  rZ2  ^wy^"]  ["(D  separated  from  the  verb] ; 
II  Sam.  5:25,  "ilisS  ]p_  T'l'n  'lLS'^^.  (d)  Same  as  c,  but  with  "jS 
precedingtheverb;"cf.  Gen.  18:5,  P^S^  ^12JS3  Hipyn  "jS .  (e)  The 
main  clause  precedes  as  in  ordinary  cases,  but  the  thought  is 
l^loonastically  repeated  after  the  I^SlS-clause;  cf.  Exod.  7:6, 
to  -3  ~T-r  71^4.  nibSS  ....  np'^'  wy^'],  "and  Moses  [and 
Aaron]  did  as  God  had  commanded — so  did  they";  Exod.  12:28; 
Num.  17:26.  (/)  It  occurs  also  that  the  principal  clause  is  intro- 
duced by  ^;  cf.  Exod.  16:34,  ^nn^B'^i  ....  n^rr  r\^z  n-fflSS , 

"As  Jahwe  commanded  [Moses],  so  [Aaron]  laid  it  up";  Num.  1:19, 
Cipri  n^;:  ^'m"^,  "so  he  numbered  them."  LXX,  Vulg., 
Kautzsch,  Baentsch  (Handkommentar)  unite  the  ^tCiJlil-clause  with 
what   precedes,     (g)  Ellipsis   of   main   clause;    cf.   II  Chron.  2:2, 

n:ib  ^:n;  nsn  [vs.  3] ^ns  t^i'uy  r^^'w  "^Tps!?,  "as  thou 

hast  dealt  with  my  father  [and  didst  send  him  cedars,  etc.] — behold 
I  am  about  to  build."  The  omission  of  the  main  clause  results  in 
an  anacoluthon.     Vulg.  supplies  sic /ac  mecwm. 

155.  There  is  another  type  of  comparative  clause  in  which 
"■J2S12  is  equivalent  to  "according  to  the  fact  or  circumstance  that," 
the  "'JpS  revealing  its  conjunctional  force;   cf.  Gen.  26:29,  ".  .  .  . 

that  thou  do  us  no  evil  [-p"^  ^'nv  ^rir^  "^^^z^  ^T.yy:  i<b  ntass 

2113],  as  we  have  not  touched  thee,"  etc.  ("according  to  the  fact 
that,"  etc.);  Gen.  34:22,  ".  .  .  .  if  every  male  among  us  be  cir- 
cumcised [Cb'Sw  Dn  ^TIJSS],  as  they  are  circumcised";  Exod. 
2:14,  "Thinkest  thou  to  kill  me  [■"]::7;-nS;  PJOH  ^^^'^],  as  thou 
killedst  the  Egyptian?";  Exod.  40: 15,  "Thou  shalt  anoint  them 
.  .  .  .  [nn^-^  "^^^^i  as  thou  anointedst  .  .  .  .";  Lev.  4: 21,  "He 
shall  burn' it  f^EH  ns  "pTT  ^IIJSS]  as  he  burnt  the  bullock";  Lev. 
18:28,  "That  the  land  vomit  you  not  forth  ....  [^i-in-ni^  nS]:  ^^X3], 
as  it  vomited  forth  the  people  .  .  .  .";  Num.  14:19,  "Pardon  the 
iniquity  of  thy  people  according  to  the  greatness  of  the  mercy  [Tiz3s;21 
"7"  □•^  "DSir;]  and  according  as  [to  the  fact  that]  thou  hast 
forgiven  this  people";  Num.  27: 13,  "Thou  also  shalt  be  gathered  to 


The  Hebrew  Particle  IllJU^  113 

thy  people  [.  .  .  .  "Ci<D  I^StS]  as  [Aaron]  was  gathered";  Deut. 
6:16;  30:9;  32:50;  Josh.  1:17;  3:17;  4:14;  8 : 5  (eUipsis  of  verb) ; 
23:15;  Judg.  2:22;  I  Sam.  15:33;  20:13;  II  Sam.  7:10  (elUpsis  of 
verb);  7:15;  10:2;  16:19;  I  Kings  1:37;  3:14;  8:57;  9:2;  9:4; 
11:38;  20:34;  23:27;  Isa.  10:10  (anacoluthic  structure  due  to  the 
excitement  of  the  speaker);  20:3;  52:14;  66:22  (with  participle); 
Jer.  2:36;  5:19;  7:15;  12:16;  31:28;  32:42;  44:13;  44:30; 
48:13;  Ezek.  20:36;  23:18;  43:22;  48:11;  Obad.,  vs.  16;  Zech. 
8:13,  14;  14:5;  Ps.  33:22;  I  Chron.  17:13;  II  Chron.  6:16;  7:17; 
Koh.  11:5;   Esther  9:31. 

156.  We  find  the  same  construction,  when  "1125^53  introduces 
an  action,  which,  though  not  real  and  accomplished,  is  nevertheless 
conceived  by  the  imagination  as  such;  cf.  Gen.  43:14,  "IIIJSS 
^nbSTIJ  ^ribbW,  "if  I  be  bereaved,  I  am  bereaved"  (R.V.).  While 
this  is  sufficiently  accurate,  it  must  be  remembered  that  there  is  no 
condition  implied.  The  bereavement  is  conceived  as  being  no  less 
certain  than  if  already  accomplished.  The  expression  denotes  abso- 
lute, though  reluctant,  resignation  to  unavoidable  circumstances. 
Kautzsch  excellently  reproduces  the  thought:  "Ich  aber — wenn  es 
denn  sein  muss,  nun  so  bin  ich  eben  verwaist."  Very  weak  Vulg. : 
Ego  autem  quasi  orbatus  absque  liberis  ero.  Cf.  also  Esther  4:16, 
^niZN  "rnZS  ^IIJSS,  "if  I  perish,  I  perish." 

157.  If  the  action  of  the  comparative  clause  is  not  represented  as 
being  really  accomplished  (as  in  the  foregoing  examples,  hence 
perfect) ,  but  merelj^  as  contingent  or  potential,  the  verb  appears  in  the 
imperfect.  As  might  be  expected,  this  is  quite  common  with  "ilJpNlS  , 
which  is  frequently  employed  to  introduce  facts  of  general  experience 
or  common  customs.  Cf.  Exod.  33: 11,  "And  Jahwe  spake  to  Moses 
face  to  face  [^n.:p"]-bi<  IIJ^X  nni^  ^^^'^],  as  a  man  speaks  to  his 
friend";  Lev.  4:10,  "He  shall  take  off  [the  fat,  etc.]  [Q'^T  ntOi^S 
^iTIj'J]  as  it  is  taken  from  the  ox";  Lev.  24:20,  "Eye  for  eye  .... 
[iz  'r\T  "3  DlSn  Zr2  "jFI^  ^tlJSS],  as  he  causes  [may  at  any 
time  cause]  a  blemish  in  a  man,  so  shall  it  be  rendered  unto  him" 
(not:  " as  he  hath  caused"  [R. v.] ;  LXX:  Kadon  dp  8cp) ;  Num.  11:12, 
"Carry  them  in  thy  bosom  ....  ['^"^ZiXn  KlS":  ^^i^3],  as  the 
nursing-father  carrieth  [the  suckling]";  Deut.  1:31,  "Jahwe  bare 
[iDn-ni<  ^^^^-^^iS-;  Itas:?],  as  a  man  beareth  his  son";  Deut.  1:44, 


114  Cahl  (Iaensslk 

"They  punsued  them  [D^^h"!-  "riryn  ^'m^],  as  hccs  do"; 
Deut.  8:5,  ?j"^3:"^  Hln^  I'^^'J^J^  'ij^S  '  "IS^-  "^'ij^? .  "As  a  man 
chastens  his  son,  so,"  etc.;  Deut.  12:22,  ^j^rrns  b^Si;'  TlDSB 
.  .  .  .  "D,  "as  the  gazelle  is  eaten,  so  shalt  thou  eat  it";  Deut. 
28:29,  "Thou  shalt  be  groping  at  noonday  [^'^yri  tSlS:;*;  ^'iS!3 
n^iSlS],  as  a  blind  man  gropcth  in  the  darkness";  Deut.  28:49, 
"And  Jahwe  will  bring  a  nation  against  thee  ....  from  the  end  of 
the  earth  r'^ir^  "ST  "PS3],  as  the  eagle  flies";  Judg.  7:5, 
nban  pb;  imS,  "as  a  dog  laps";  Judg.  16:9,  pnr  ^■J:Sl3 
b^HD,  "as  a  string  is  broken";  II  Sam.  19:4,  n^n  233ri';  "^^3 , 
"as  people  steal  themselves  [i.e.,  steal  away]  [when  they  flee  in 
battle]";  II  Kings  21:13,  ...  .  n-^-nmS ,  "as  a  man  wipcth 
[a  dish]";  Isa.  9:2,  ^b^rr  nmS ,  "as  men  rejoice";  Isa.  25:11, 
nn'Sn  "kr"S"  ^">IJS3,  "as  the  swimmer  spreads  [his  hands]";  Isa. 
31:4,  ^C^i^'Ti  nsn^  ^"^^jl?,  "as  the  lion  growls";  Isa.  55:10, 
D'jisn  -t"  ntpS!3,'"as  the  rain  descends";  Isa.  65:8,  5<^:2';  "^'m^ 
^iTFin,  "as  the  new  wine  is  found";  Isa.  66:20,  ^S^u^  ^"^^^^3  , 
"as  [the  children  of  Israel]  bring  [their  oblation]";  Jer.  19:11, 
"I'jj-^  nv^i<3  ^-"^^^  '^?? '  "^o  will  I  break,  as  one  breaks  [may  at 
any  time  break]  a  potter's  vessel";  Jer.  43:12,  Tl^^Tl  Tll^T  ^ibytS  , 
"as  a  shepherd  puts  on  [his  garment]";  Ezek.  46:12,  "He  shall  pre- 
pare his  burnt  offerings  [Ti^T  ^12JN3],  as  he  prepares  [on  the  Sabbath 
day]";  Amos  2:13,  nb^:?;!  p^n  ^tCSiS ,  "as  a  cart  presses"; 
Amos  3:12,  nyin  b'-I^  "^^^^ ,  "as  a  shepherd  rescues";  Amos 
9:9,  M-^nSn  ns-;  ^m^,  "as  [grain]  is  sifted";  Mai.  3:17,  ^m3 
i32l"by  ^^X  bbn'^,  "as  a  man  spares  his  son";  Num.  2:17, 
^Sri:  "'^XS,  "as  they  encamp";  Jer.  13:11,  ^iTSH  pIlT  ^'^2JS3 , 
"as  the  girdle  cleaves." 

158.  The  comparison  may  be  merely  assumed  or  imaginative; 
cf.  Exod.  10:10,  "So  may  Jahwe  be  with  you  [D3n5<  nbllJS  ^1^X3], 
as  I  shall  let  you  go."  The  action  is  here  neither  completed  nor 
potential.  Pharaoh  has  no  thought  of  allowing  Israel  to  depart.  As 
the  principal  clause  is  bitterly  ironical,  so  the  comparison  is  intended 
to  show  the  vanity  of  Israel's  hopes.  Cf.  also  Deut.  22:26,  "'^XS 
"TH  "^^^n  "«  ^~yyby'  '^^i^  Q^P^,  "as  if  a  man  should  rise 
against  his  friend,  so  is  this  matter";  an  assumed  comparison  for  the 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^^H.  115 

sake  of  illustration ;  not:  "as  when"  (Driver,  Tenses,  §  115);  the  idea 
of  time  is  unsuitable  to  the  sense;  II  Sam.  16:23,  ^nin  bsilfl-;  n^i^S  , 
"as  if  one  should  ask,"  etc.;  Isa.  29:8,  .  .  .  .  n3?-jr;  nbrr  nm3 , 
"as  if  a  hungry  man  should  dream  [and  behold  he  eateth,  but  he 
awaketh,  and  his  soul  is  empty  ....  so  shall  the  multitude  of  the 
nations  be  that  fight  against  Mt.  Zion]";  Isa.  51:13,  "...  .  and 
fearest  continually  because  of  the  fury  of  the  oppressor  n^Sl3 
IT'MiIJnb  "313],  as  if  he  were  preparuig  to  destroy?"  (Kautzsch: 
"als  zieite  er,  dich  zu  vernichten";  R.V.  [margin]:  "as  though"); 
the  question  that  immediately  follows,  viz.,  "and  where  is  the  fury 
of  the  oppressor?"  places  the  sense  of  the  ^12JS3  in  this  connection 
beyond  a  doubt;  Ezek.  1:16,  "Sisn  :]inn  "iSisn  TTrr  n^SS , 
"[Their  appearance  was]  as  if  a  wheel  were  within  a  wheel"  (Vulg.: 
quasi  sit  rota  in  medio  rotae;  cf.  Ezek.  10:10);  Amos  5:19,  ^125^^3 
iy^S^  ^^5<n  -jS'^  llJ^i^  C^;",  "as  if  a  man  should  flee  from  before 
the  lion  and  [the  bear]  meets  him"  (Vulg.:  Quomodo  si  fugiat; 
LXX:  ou  TpoTTOv  eav  cfyvyr)  audpooTos);  Zech.  10:6,  "They  shall  be 
[D^r":7"5<b  ^"JJSS]  as  if  I  had  not  cast  them  off"  (Kautzsch: 
"als  ha'tte  ich  sie  niemals  verworfen");  Job  10:19,  ^n^^ri  ^b  ^lIj^^3 
n^nS,  "as  if  I  had  not  been,  I  would  be";  Esther  2:20,  "For 
Esther  did  the  command  of  Mordecai  [in^  ^'rr^r  ^K'V  ^^^^J' 
as  if  she  had  been  under  his  care";  Mic.  3:3,  H^DS  "illJSS,  "as  if  in  a 
pot"  (text  doubtful,  cf.  LXX);   Neh.  6:3  (similar  to  Exod.  10:10). 

159.  The  logical  relations  between  the  two  members  of  com- 
parative sentences  may  be  such  that  ^lp^<3  has  the  sense  of  "in 
proportion  as"  {quo,  quanto)  or  "in  what  degree."  Cf.  Exod.  1:12, 
na^^  *3  in5<  ^Sy*;  ^^&<j1,  "the  more  they  afflicted  them,  the 
more  they  multiplied"  (R.V.);  Quantoque  opprimehant  eos,  tanto 
magis  multiplicabantur  (Vulg.). 

"lllJiO  i>^  Temporal  Clauses 

160.  From  the  original  sense  of  ''■^^'^ ,  "according  to,"  "agree- 
ably to  the  fact  that,"  it  was  an  easy  step  to  the  temporal  use.  To 
what  extent  (if  any)  the  comparative  idea  was  still  felt  by  the  Hebrew 
consciousness  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  determine.  The  sentence 
"Agreeably  to  the  fact  that  [lipSS]  he  [Abraham]  was  about  to  enter 
Egypt,  he  said  unto  Sarai  his  wife  ....,"  may  be,  perhaps,  just 


116  (\\RL  (Jaenssle 

as  close  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  thoufrlit  ;is  the  j^urely  temiJorul  con- 
ception, "when  he  was  about,"  etc.  The  EngUsh  idiom,  however, 
requires  a  temporal  conjunction  in  the  passages  in  question.  Accord- 
ing to  the  context,  "when,"  "as  soon  as,"  "after"  are  found  to  be  the 
proper  equivalents  of  "uSSS  .  The  nearest  approach  to  the  Hebrew 
conjunction  is  the  Latin  simulatque,  though  the  use, of  the  latter  is 
more  limited.  The  Vulg.  employs  cum,  postquam,  ut  (in  the  sense  of 
simulatque) ,  ablative  absolute  with  little  discrimination;  LXX:  rju'iKa, 
cos,  nera  to  with  infinitive,  etc.  Examples:  Gen.  12:11,  .  .  .  . 
^■;S^1  ....  Sizb  Z^y-  niiJwSS  'ri'l  (referred  to  above);  Gen. 
18:33,  ...  .  ^nib  -53  ■^•JJXS  Hin^  ?;b^1 ,  "And  Jahwe  went 
his  way  as  soon  as  [R.V.]  he  had  left  off  communing  [with  Abra- 
ham]"; Gen.  20:13,  T^SI  ....  □^-b5<  "nj^  TJnn  ^12JS3  ^-"1, 
"And  it  came  to  pass,  when  [the  time  is  more  generally  indicated 
than  in  the  foregoing  example]  God  caused  me  to  wander,  that  I  said 
[unto  her]";  Gen.  24:22,  n]5^'l  ....  nin^b  .  .  .  .  ?lb3  niiJsiS 
.  .  .  .  u'^^^ ,  "as  soon  as  they  [the  camels]  had  done  drinking, 
the  man  took  .  .  .  .";  the  action  of  the  main  clause  follows 
immediately  upon  that  of  the  subordinate;   yet  Vulg.  has  postquam; 

Gen.   24:52,  .  .  .  .  nri"";]n-i-ns  ....  in;?  ti'^   nizjss   ^rn 

^nriTp^") ,  "when  [as  soon  as]  the  servant  heard  their  words  .  .  .  ."; 

Gen.' 27:30,  sn  .  .  .  .  YiT^i  ....  !]i^b  pn::-;  nbs  nms  ^n^i, 

"as  soon  as  [R.V.]  Isaac  had  made  an  end  of  blessing  ...."; 
the  parenthetical  clause  "Jacob  having  just  gone  out"  shows  that 
the  action  of  the  principal  sentence  follows  immediately  upon  that 
of  the  ■^'vpSS -clause  (Vulg.:    Vix  Isaac  sermonem  impleverat);   Gen. 

29:10,  '^j^'i  ....  br;yni<  ....  ns-;^   ^m3   ^rr"],  "and  it 

came  to  pass,  as  soon  as  [R.V. :  "when"]  he  saw  Rachel,  that  he 
drew  near";  Gen.  30:25,  ^•Ii<^  TCVT^^fl  bn"i  mb;;  "^TlJSa  ^nn 
2pr,  "when  Rachel  had  born  Joseph";  Gen.  S2:S^  j!pT  TJS-'] 
DSJ  I'OM,  "And  Jacob  said,  when  he  saw  them";  Gen.  32:32, 
.  ^^  .  -inj  n^S;3  T2J-:Tan  ib-rnpi,  "and  the  sun  rose  upon  him, 
when  he  had  passed  over";  Gen.  37:23,  "CT  J^n-^TTSS  ^-•;'l 
.  .  .  .  ^Ij'lIJS^l  VriSl'by; ,  "And  it  came  to  pass,  as  soon  as  [Vulg. 
ut  {=simulac)  pervenit]  Joseph  came  to  his  brethren  .  .  .  .";  "as 
soon  as"  is  here  preferable  to  "when"  (R.V.);  Gen.  43:1, 
1*Ii<''')  ....  "3  ^"^^^3  ''»^"] )  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when  they 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "l12j^^  117 

had  eaten  up  [made  an  end  of  eating]  .  .  .  ."  (Vulg.:  consumptis 
cihis);  Exod.  32:19,  bj^rmyj  J^^'JI  ....  n^jD  niSSS  ^H'l ,  "And 
it  came  to  pass,  when  he  drew  near  ....  that  he  saw  the  calf" 
(R.V. :  "  as  soon  as  " ;  but  the  idea  of  immediateness  is  not  necessarily 
implied;  Kautzsch:  "Als  er  nun  in  die  Nahe  kam");  Deut.  2:16, 

^bs  nirr  -n--i  ....  n-^-b-;n  "'Jpjy^-bs  ^^n-niijsia  XO,  ''and 

it  came  to  pass,  when  [or  after]  .  .  .  ."  (Vulg.:  postquam  .... 
cedderunt);  Josh.  4:1,  mn^  T2^5=^^  ....  ^an-n"j:,S;3  'ri^l ,  "when 
the  people  had  completely  passed  over  .  .  .  .";  Josh.  4:11;  5:8; 
Judg.  3:18,  -'r^'^  ....  ^'T"^  "?3  "^^^^  ""'L  "when  he 
had  made  an  end  of  offering";  Judg.  8:33,  "pyi:*  T\'2  "'^^3  'm'I 
IZ^tlJ^I,  "and  it  came  to  pass  as  soon  as  Gideon  was  dead,  that 
.  .  .V'  (Vulg.:  postquam);  Judg.  11:5,  ^Sb^l  ....  ^'iMbs  ^m3  ; 
Judg.  16:22,  rbj  nmD  TTE'lh  i^2j^<T^yir  "bn^^l,  "And' the  hair 
of  his  head  began  to  grow,  after  it  had  been  shaven"  (R.V.:  "After 
he  was  shaven");  I  Sam.  1:24,  M^b'!'^  ^'JJNS  r\W  ^nb^FlT , 
"when  [as  soon  as]  she  had  weaned  him";  I  Sam.  6:6,  1^^^^  sbn 
n^r;!ri2J"'')  Dnz  b^ynn  ,  "when  he  made  a  mock  of  them";  I  Sam. 
8:1,'.  '.  .  .  Dir^l  .  ;  .  .  '{pi  nmD  ^-^1,  "when  [time  only  in- 
dicated in  a  general  way]  he  [Samuel]  was  old  .  .  .  ."  (Vulg.: 
cum  senuisset);  I  Sam.  12:8,  Drn!2^<  ^p^n  ....  SS-^T2:S:3 , 
"when  he  came,"  etc.;  I  Sam.  24:2,  ^Tj^^l  .  ".  .  .  2Tl3  niSSS  ^m, 
"and  it  came  to  pass,  when  [as  soon  as],"  etc.  (Vulg.:  postquam); 
II  Sam.  12:21,  ....  Fl'^p  .  .  .  .  np  ^TTSri ,  "but  after  [the  child] 
was  dead,"  etc.  (Vulg.:  puero  mortuo;  Kautzsch:  nachdem);  II  Sam. 
16:16,  ^"-:5<^T  .  .  .  .  &5n  ^mS,  "when  he  came,"  etc.;  II  Sam. 
20:12,  nj<^  ^'^SS,  "when  he  saw";  II  Sam.  20:13,  n^H  ^IZiXS 
^33?  .  .  .  .  ,  "when  he  was  removed,"  etc.;  II  Kings  14:5,  'n"! 
"^^  ....  7'\Z)y.l'BX'\  npT"  H'UJ^S  J  "and  it  came  to  pass,  as  soon 
as,"  etc.;  IsaV23:5,  ^b''-;  W'^l'/Zb  y;tp-niI5N;3 ,  "when  the  report 
[cometh]  to  Egypt  they  shall  writhe"  (the  action  of  both  clauses 
lies  in  the  future;  Vulg.:  Cum  auditum  fuerit,  dolebunt);  Isa. 
26:9  (similar  to  preceding  example);  Jer.  38:29,  "ISb?  "^tDJ^S  H^ni 
^5<2'^'l  ....  D^bllJ^T^ ,  "and  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jeremiah  was 
taken  ....  ";yer.  39:4,  ^n^n^l  .  .  .  .  Q5<-1  nmS  "'-■''1,  "and  it 
came  to  pass,  as  soon  as  [Zedekiah  and  the  men  of  war]  saw  them 
....";    Ezek.    16:50,    •n\^5n  nirXS  innx  nXXI,   "And   I  took 


118  Carl  Gaenssle 

them  away,  as  soon  as  I  saw  [it]";  or,  perhaps,  "according  to  what 
I  saw"  (with  a  causal  nuance)  (Vulg.:  sicut  vidisti  [evading  the 
difficulty  by  using  second  person]);  Koh.  8:16,  '^^"ni<  "nn:  ^m3 

T'S""! "  when  I  applied  my  heart  ....  then  I  saw"  (note 

the  perfect  in  main  clause;  without  1  in  11  Sam.  20:13  see  above); 
Neh.  3:33,  ib  "^n^^  ....  libnjC  Tl'^  "^'^^^ ,  "as  soon  as 
Sanballat  heard,  he  was  wroth."  Precisely  the  same  in  Neh.  4:1; 
Neh.  4:6,  r'IX^"l  ....  1J5n-^UJS:3  •'rr^ ,  "And  it  came  to  pass, 
when  .  .  .  .";  Neh.  4:9,  ^12331.  .  .  .'  ^Tl^  ^123St3  "H^l ,  "and 
it  came  to  pass,  when  .  .  .  .";  Neh.  5:6,  nil3X3  .  .  .  .  ^b  ^n";i 
Tl" -"i' ,  "I  was  wrc^h  ....  when  I  heard";  Neh.  6:16,  "ri'l 
^X'^i;'!  ....  ^T'Z'^  "^"^^5'  "and  it  came  to  pass,  when  they  heard 

.  .'.  .";  Neh. 7:'i^T:;ys;i  ....  nnDn?  ^ms  -n''!,"and  .  .  .  .  , 

when  [the  wall]  was  built  .  .  .  .";    Neh.   13:19,  ^bb"^  ^ITSB  "-"1 

n^'^i^l "as  soon  as  it  grew  dark  .  .  .  .";  I  Chron.  17:1, 

n-i5<^-l\  .  .  .  Z&  TilJSiS  ^ri^l ,  "and  .  .  .  .  ,  when  ....";  II  Chron. 
25:3,  rnn'^l  .  /.  .  nj:""  "nmS  "n'l,  "as  soon  as  .  .  .  ."  (Kittel: 
''Sobald  er  die  konigUche  Gewalt  fest  in  Handen  hatte) ;  Ps.  51 : 2. 

161.  Temporal  "1123^13  may,  of  course,  also  appear  with  the 
imperfect,  though  the  instances  are  comparatively  rare.  Examples: 
Gen.  27:40,  ....  ib^  np^5^  T^Fl  ^^S3  n;n'] ,  "and  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  when"  (text  doubtful;  cf.  SBOT);  Gen.  40:14, 
T^  lit:"';  TbD>i3  ^n&5  'DFinsrQS  ^3,  "when  it  shall  be  well  with 
thee"   (for  first  part  of  verse,  see  Driver,  Tenses,   §  120d);  Exod. 

17:11,  Tr  rrr  ^iiixii  bs-^'^^^  -qji  it  ....  n^y^  '\^^'2  rrr^^ 

pb"->  ■'nrn ,  "and  it  came  to  pass,  whenever  he  [Moses]  lifted  up 
his  hand  Israel  prevailed";  "I'iiJSlS  here  indicates  repeated  action  in 
the  past  (LXX:  drav  eirvpe);  Ezek.35:ll,  '^jpsm  n^S  DS  "n^^-bl, 
"I  will  make  myself  known  among  them,  when  I  shall  judge  thee"; 
Hos.  7:12,  'n-j;^  On^b:?  iri^S^J  ^jb";  firsts,  "when  they  shall  go, 
I  shall  spread  my  net  upon  them";  Koh.  4:17,  I^IJSlS  ^??1  '^'^^ 
n"r;"!S;r!  n^^I'bys  "^bri,  "guard  thy  foot,  when  thou  goest  to  the 

house  of  God";  Koh.  5:3,  rabwh  ^mr\  b^5  .  .  .  .  tt:  n"in  T^rss, 

"when  thou  vowest  a  vow,  do  not  defer  its  fulfilment";  Ezek. 
37:18,  ^Sll  ....  ^'^'/2ir  "la:X3,  "when  they  say  ...  .  say  unto 
them." 


The  Hebkew  Particle  ^''ISS^  119 

"I"^r;'j53  in  Causal  Clauses 

162.  A  ^ipSS -clause  may  stand  in  such  relation  to  the  main 
clause  as  to  indicate  a  ground  or  reason.  Examples:  Num.  27:14, 
"Thou  shalt  be  gathered  to  thj^  people  as  Aaron  thy  brother  was 
gathered  [vs.  13]  [^E  DI^^Tr  ^■^^?]>  because  ye  rebelled  against 
my  word";  the  punishment  is  represented  as  commensurate  with  the 
rebelhon;  such,  at  least,  is  the  original  idea  (Vulg.:  Quia;  LXX: 
Siort);  Judg.  6:27,  irJi^l  ....  n^^-njiJ  5<"^;  ^lr^^^  ^nn,  "and  it 
came  to  pass,  because  he  feared  ....  by  day,  that  he  did  it  [bj^ 
night]"  (LXX:  cos  i4>o^r]dr}) ;  I  Sam.  8:6,  "And  it  displeased  Samuel 
[^-^S  ^taj!!3],  because  they  said  [Give  us  a  king]"  (Vulg.:  Eo  quod 
dixissent;  LXX:  <hs  elTrap);  I  Sam.  28:18,  ...  .  riTl^'ikb  n-OJXS 
....  "S'by ,  "because  thou  didst  not  obey  ....  therefore  ...."; 
the  "3'b?  plainly  reveals  the  causal  force  of  "1TIJ^5;  I  Kings  3:6, 
"Thou  hast  shown  great  favor  to  David  my  father  [T^b^i  ^'0X3 
Tl'jib],  because  he  walked  before  thee  in  truth,"  etc.  (LXX:  /ca^cbs 
8i,rj\d€v;  Vulg.:  sicut  ambulativit) ;  but  mere  comparison  does  not 
exhaust  the  sense;  there  is  a  distinct  causal  connotation;  Kautzsch: 
"wie  er  denn  auch"  is  good,  making  the  causal  relation  less  close 
and  prominent  than  weil,  "because";  II  Kings  17:26,  "Behold  they 
are  killing  them  [  .  .  .  .  t^r&.ZTi^  U^^j  UZ'^  ^'^^f?],  because 
they  are  not  knowing  the  law,"  etc.  (LXX:  KaQori;  Vulg.:  eo  quod 
ignorent);  Hag.  1:12,  "And  Zerubbabel  ....  obeyed  the  voice  of, 
Jahwe  and  the  words  of  Haggai  the  prophet  [nin^  '^"^"'P  ^^^^l^ 
because  Jahwe  had  sent  him"  (LXX:  Ka^ort;  Vulg.:  stci^O;  Ps.  56:7, 
"They  mark  my  steps  [""ipsS  ^^p  '^'^SlB],  because  they  have  waited 
for  my  soul"  (R.V.  [margin]:  "inasmuch  as"). 

163.  TklJi^a  is  sometimes  employed  as  a  causal  conjunction  in  the 
sense  of  "in  that,"  "inasmuch  as,"  "seeing  that,"  "because,"  "in  view 
of  the  fact  that."  Examples :  Gen.  39 : 9,  "  He  has  not  kept  back  from 
me  anything  except  thee  [iP'^^^-nS  ^^^^],  in  that  thou  art  his 
wife"  (R.V.:  "because";  LXX:  ha.  to  ak  yvvaiKo.  avTov  dvai);  Gen. 
39:23,  "The  prison-keeper  looked  not  to  anything  that  was  in  his 
charge  [inS  TTirr  ^12?i<^],  in  that  Jahwe  was  with  him"  (R.V.: 
"because");  Koh.  7:2,  "It  is  better  to  go  to  the  house  of  mourning 


120  Cakl  Oaknsslk 

than  to  tlu>  house  of  fcvistiuK  lD-^^r;-b2  "ic  S^H  "^^in],  in  that 
this  is  the  end  of  all  men"  (R.V.:  "for";  Kautzsch:  de7in;  Delitzsch: 
sintcmal:  Siejjfried:  indcni);  Koh.  8:4,  "Persist  not  in  an  evil 
thin^^  for  he  [th."  kin-|  .l..1h  wii:.tso(>ver  lie  will  [vs.  :]]  pTSJ^n 
"■^ilS^"^  T^"^'!  "'-"1,  in  that  the  kind's  word  hath  power"  (R.V. : 
"for");V  Koh.  8:17,  ^tDS  bm  [=Aramaic  "H  b^lS],  "because  of 
the  fact  that,"  "because." 

^ds  b^ 

1G4.  "uJS  b"  ,  i)ro])erly  "on  the  ground  that,"  "on  the  basis  of 
the  fact  that."  is  employed  to  introduce  subordinate  clauses  expressing 
the  cause  or  motive  of  the  main  action.  Examples:  Exod.  32:35, 
"And  Jahwe  smote  the  people  [^Jjn'rX  ^123?  ^'^2j^^l  by],  because 
they  had  made  the  calf";  Num.  20:24,  "He  [Aaron]  shall  not  enter 
into  the  land  ....  [^B'm  Dn^-^p-miJN!  by],  because  ye  rebelled 
against  my  command";  Deut.  29:24,  "Men  shall  say  [^njy  TCS  b^ 
mn^  rS-"^"^1  ....  mn^  n^^n-nX],  because  they  forsook  the 
covenant  of  Jahwe  ....  therefore  the  anger  of  Jahwe  was  kindled"; 
Deut.  32:51,  "Be  gathered  unto  thy  people  as  Aaron  ....  [vs.  50] 
[Crri^p  Xb  ^"i^^  by  ....  ^a  nrhrc  ^tiS;  by],  because  ye  tres- 
passed against  me  ....  because  ye  did  not  sanctify  me";  I  Sam. 
24:6,  "The  heart  of  David  smote  him  [":5"nN  TH^  ^T2JS  by], 
because  he  had  cut  off  the  skirt  [of  Saul]";  11  Sam.  3:30,  "Joab 
and  Abishai  slew  Abner  [bx  HlfynX  n^pn  niSN  by],  because  he 
had  killed  Asahel";  II  Sam.  6:8^  n^rr  'pS  ^^r^i  by  Tllb  -n^^! , 
"because  Jahwe  had  broken  forth  upon  Uzzah";  II  Sam.  8:10, 
"And  Toi  sent  Joram  unto  king  David  to  salute  him  .... 
[^'"""inil  D"b:  ^tps;  by],  because  he  had  fought  against  Hadad- 
ezer";    II  Sam.  12:6,  "And   the  lamb   he   shall   restore   fourfold 

[b-:r:-!j<b  ^tss  byi  n-tn  ^n'nn-nx  niry  n-cs  ^p^],  because  he 

did  this  thing  and  because  he  had  no  pity";  the  interchange  here 
between  ■'u3S  3py  and  ilTSl  by  shows  that  both  conjunctions 
have  practically  the  same  meaning,  though  the  original  conceptions 
are  different  (see  under  ^IpS  2py);  II  Sam.  21:1,  "Upon  Saul 
....  [rests]  blood  guiltiness  [D^ynitM-nS  nr^H-^trJJ^  by],  because 

'  ^'^b  nCXS  in  Jonah  1 :8  ="becauso  of  whom,"  cuius  causa,  and  is  patterned  after 
the  model  of  the  Aramaicized  form  "'^^1155  in. vs.  7.  Cf.  also  vs.  12.  ibpS,  "because  of 
me,"  "on  my  account."  mea  causa. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ~"*^5<  121 

he  slew  the  Gibeonites";  I  Kmgs  9:9,  "And  they  shall  say  .... 
[i<^3n  "iS-by  ....  mn^-ns  ^nj:?  '\m  by],  because  they  forsook 
Jahwe  ....  therefore  he  brought  this  evil  upon  them";  I  Kings 
16:7,  ''The  word  of  Jahwe  came  against  Baasha  ....  [""I125&5  bj? 
irij<  *~i'^*j],  because  he  smote  him."  The  remaining  passages  are 
the  following:  II  Kings  18:12;  22:13;  Jer.  16:11;  22:9;  Ezek. 
23:30;   35:15;    39:23;    Ps.  119:49;    Job  32:3;    Esther  1:15;    8:7; 

I  Chron.  13:10;  18:10;  II  Chron.  7:22;  34:21.  In  II  Chron. 
34 :  25  iTIJNt  nnri  is  employed  in  exactly  the  same  sense  as  ntp5^  by_ 
in  similar  passages:  "I  am  about  to  bring  evil  upon  this  place  .... 
pj^nTy  ITIJS  ri~ri],  because  they  have  forsaken  me."  In  Jer.  15:4 
the  "I'^IJyj  following  b"  has  pronominal  force:  "I  will  make  them  a 
consternation  to  all  kingdoms  of  the  earth  because  of  Manasseh 
[n";bTI3^n"S  ri'Zy'^'^^  by],  because  of  what  he  did  in  Jerusalem." 

165.  Sometimes  "I'lTSSt  is  dispensed  with,  b>'  alone  having  the 
force  of  a  conjunction;    cf.  Gen.  31:20;    Ps.  119:136;    Ezra  3:11; 

II  Chron.  29:36.^ 

166.  In  two  instances  b>  is  used  concessively;  cf.  Isa.  53:9, 
niry  C"^~'Xb  b?,  "although  [notwithstanding  the  fact  that]  he  had 
done  no  violence";  Job  16:17,  "S^^  C"I"'i<b  b;^" ,  "although  no 
violence  is  in  my  hands."  For  a  similar  concessive  use  of  the  prepo- 
sitional by  cf.  Job  10:7,  'I^riy'^'by ,  "despite  thy  knowing  that," 
etc.;  i.e.,  "although  thou  knowest";  Job  34:6,  3-Tj&j5  ^t3E"il";-by, 
"Notwithstanding  my  right  I  am  accounted  a  liar." 

n"i2N  ^2'n-by 

167.  ^TIJS  12'n  by  signifies  properly  "because  of  the  matter^ 
that."  In  the  actual  usus  loquendi  the  "^21  has  become  so  colorless 
as  to  make  the  expression  practically  equivalent  to  "^II??^  b>  ;  cf. 
Deut.  22:24,  "Ye  shall  stone  them  ....  the  damsel  [T^N  "^ZVby 

....  n^y-^'i^!!  ^zTby  "ij'j^n-nwsn  ....  ni^y^-.sb],  because  she 

cried  not  ....  and  the  man  because  he  humbled  [forced]  [the 
wife  of  his  neighbor]";  Deut.  23:5,  "An  Ammonite  or  a  Moabite 

1  The  first  three  passages  are  overlooked  by  Budie,  Die  hebr.  Praposition  ^37 ,  p.  68. 

2  For  this  use  of  I^T  cf.  Gen.  12:17,  "^yO  "l^l'by  ;  20:11,  IPTpS  "iSI'by  ; 
43:18,  apSn  in\!"by:  Exod.  8:8,  niy^nS^n  nn^"by,  etc.  The  nUJS-clause.  it 
will  be  seen,  simply  depends,  as  a  single  idea,  on  the  construct  "l^'H  • 


122  Carl  Oaenssle 

sliall  iu)t  cuter  into  tlie  as!seml)ly  of  Jalnvc  ....  [vs.  4]  pQVb" 
C-DS  T-lp  sb  1uJl<],  because  they  met  you  not  [with  bread  and 
with  wiitorj,"  etc.;  II  Sam.  13:22,  "For  Absalom  hated  Ammon 
[r>Zy  ""I'S  "^Z'^'bS],  because  he  had  forced  [his  sister  Tamar]." 

"ll23^^  niis-bs-b? 

168.  riilS  is  a  plurale  tantum  in  the  sense  of  "circumstance," 
"reason,"  "occasion,"  though  occurring  nowhere  alone,  but  always  in 
conjunction  with  by.  Cf.  Gen.  21: 11,  i:!n  DIIS  b^,  "on  account  of 
his  son";  Gen.  21:25,  C^fl  15<2  PiillJ^'by  ," on  account  [because] 
of  the  well  of  water"  (Vulg. :  propter  puteum  aquae);  Gen.  26:32, 
"They  made  known  unto  him  ["'SJ^^ri  riili<"b?]  concerning  [the 
matter  of]  the  well";  Exod.  18:8,  "And  Moses  related  unto  his 
father-in-law  all  that  Jahwe  had  done  ....  [b^<^i^■;  niij^  b>'],  on 
account  of  [for  the  sake  of]  Israel";   Num.  12:1;  13:21,  etc. 

169.  As  a  conjunction  riili<  b^  does  not  occur;  nor  does  b^ 
n^JJi^  rili< ,  though  Wjaikoop  enumerates  this  combination  among 
the  causal  conjunctions  {Syntax,  p.  106).  The  only  compound 
in  which  inilb<  appears  as  an  element  is  1125 1^  nili<"bD"by ,  which 
introduces  an  emphatic  causal  sentence.  The  exact  force  is,  accord- 
ing to  Ges.,  Thes.,  has  ipsas  oh  causas  quod,  "for  the  very  reason 
that,"  "eben  deshalb  well";  cf.  Jer.  3:8,  nini<-b3-b?  ^3  S^Sl 
5^^"^3  Sbl  .  .  .  .  riWblp  bs-TT^  T^Z^'2  nSSD  nirN,"AndIsaw 
that — for  the  very  reason  that  backsliding  Israel  had  committed 
adultery,  I  put  her  away  and  gave  her  a  bill  of  divorcement — Judah 
did  not  fear,"  etc.  For  the  construction  of  the  entire  verse  cf. 
Konig,  III,  414a,  3606,  and  Keil,  Comm.  on  Jer. 

"lips  "B-by 

170.  "S'by ,  lit.,  "according  to  the  command,  or  mouth"  (cf. 
Gen.  45:21,  i^^B  ^D'by  ,  "according  to  the  command  of  Pharaoh"; 
Exod.  17:1,  mri"  "S'by),  is  frequently  employed  in  the  sense  of 
"according  to  the  measure  of,"  "in  proportion  to,"  "in  conformity 
with";  cf.  Lev.  27:18,  D"!^"  "'B'by  ,  "in  proportion  to  the  years," 
"according  to  the  years"  (R.V.)  (Vulg.:  juxta);  Exod.  34:27, 
nbs-  n^-^Zl-  ^B-by  ^3,  "for  after  the  tenor  [R.V.]  of  these 
words  [I  have  made  a  covenant]."     The  conjunction  occurs  but  once. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  HISS  123 

Cf.  Lev.  27:8,  ^ISH  T  yisn  n^S  'B'by ,  lit.,  ''according  to  the 
measure  of  what  his  hand  can  reach,"  i.e.,  ''according  as  he  may 
be  able." 

171.  This  compound  occurs  once:  Mai.  2:9,  "I  have  made  you 
despised  and  abased  [D"'')";2a:  Dj"!??  "l^!??.  ^33]  according  as 
ye  have  not  kept  my  ways"  (R.V.).  But  doubtless  the  idea  of 
cause  predominates  over  that  of  comparison,  notwithstanding  the 
outward  form  lipS  ^£3  seems  to  have  here  essentially  the  same 
sense  as  causal  "^^^"^  already  discussed.  Kautzsch:  "Weil  ihr 
ja,"  etc. 

172.  ■'SS  is  found  alone  in  Zech.  2:4,  "These  are  the  horns 
which  have  scattered  Israel  [IllJi^i  J^TTw'J^b  'i2J"'!J^  ''33],  according  to 
a  degree  [that]  none  lifted  up  his  head."  The  sense  is  consecutive. 
Wellhausen  and  Nowack  read  ^"123N1  instead  of  '0"'5<  and  make  Judah 
the  subject  of  S'^Ej  . 

^^^  ]T. 

173.  "itZJiS:  'T  is  more  limited  in  its  use  than  ^IIJS  b^ .  As  a 
rule,  it  is  not  used  merely  to  introduce  a  cause  as  such,  or  to  furnish 
an  explanation  of  some  state  or  condition.  This  is  the  proper  func- 
tion of  TOX  by .  As  will  be  seen  from  the  examples  to  follow, 
HITS  "^y^  denotes  generally  cause  and  motive,  and  hence  presup- 
poses a  conscious  personal  agent  (generally  the  Deity)  in  the  main 
clause.  It  is  used  almost  without  exception  in  divine  promises  or 
threats.  Naturally,  therefore,  the  action  of  the  principal  sentence 
will  be  in  the  future.  Though  this  distinction  between  the  two 
conjunctions  is  not  maintained  throughout,  it  is  nevertheless  suffi- 
ciently marked  to  arrest  the  attention  and  deserve  notice.  Further 
details  and  exceptions  will  appear  in  the  examples.  Examples: 
Gen.  22:16,  "By  myself  have  I  sworn  that  pS]  [H^'^^  Tu:&<  ]r 
T^'D'^'i^  T|^2""'3  ....  n-TM  ^^'^rrns]  because  thou  hast  done  this 
thing  ....  I  will  bless  thee"  (the  resumption  of  "'3  gives  special 
emphasis  to  the  main  clause)  (LXX:  ou  dp€Kep  iTolrjcxas;  Vulg.: 
Quia).  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  ^TlJNl  '^^"^  here  expresses  more 
than  simply  the  notion  of  cause.  It  is  more  significant  than 
IllJi^  by .      It   indicates   the   motive   of    the  main   action   besides 


124  Carl  (Saknssle 

roprosontin^;  tlic  lattiM-.  i.e.,  tlic  promise  of  Jahwe,  as  a  corresponding 
rcconipcMiso  for  Al)rahanrs  obedience.  The  thought  of  the  writer 
wt)ul(l  l)e.  periiaps.  most  accurately  expressed  by  rendering,  "Answer- 
ing [corresponding]  to  the  fact  that  thou  hast  ....  I  will  surely 
bless  thee,"  though  we  can  no  longer  tell  just  to  what  extent  the 
original  idea  prevailed.  Cf.  also  Deut.  1:36,  "To  him  [Caleb]  will 
I  give  the  land  that  he  hath  trodden  upon  ....  [«b7J  ni^JS  ]r 
riTi"  "^"5^],  because  he  hath  wholly  followed  Jahwe"  (LXX:  5td 
TO  irpoaKticdai  avTou  .  .  .  .  ;  Vulg.:  Quia  secutus  est)  (the  same, 
but  with  perfect  in  the  main  clause,  because  denoting  the  fulfilment 

of  \hv  promise,  Josh.  14:14,  '^  ....  nbsb  -,innn-nn^n  -jD-by 

nir.*  '""y*  TtVl  ^"^X  ,  "  Therefore  Hebron  became  the  inheritance 
of  Caleb  ....  because  he  wholly  followed  Jahwe");  I  Kings  3:11; 
IT  Kings  10:30.  "And  Jahwe  said  to  Jehu  [.  .  .  .  nh^pn-niljj^  ■^"; 
"*  "l"^^.  ^''?^"  '"r.r^l;  because  thou  hast  done  well  ....  thy  sons 
of  the  fourth  generation  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  Israel"  (LXX: 
avd'  Jjj/);  Jer.  35:18,  "Thus  says  Jahwe  []db  ....  Ur^T^t  ^^5<  "r 
n"i"  sb  .  .  .  .],  because  ye  have  obeyed  the  commandments  of 
Jo'nadal)  ....  therefore  ....  shall  not  be  cut  off,"  etc.  (LXX: 
'Ewetdr]);  II  Chron.  1:11,  "And  God  said  unto  Solomon  ["llliSl  "^'^ 

T^b  ",^n:  ....  n-^Dnn  ....  ^nnb-^y  ni<T  nn^ri],  because'  this 

was  in  thy  heart  ....  wisdom  and  knowledge  is  given  unto  thee." 
It  will  be  seen  that  1'^2?^^  "?^  in  all  the  above  examples  is  used  in 
connection  with  promises.  Similarly,  when  the  main  clause  con- 
tains a  threat;  cf.  Judg.  2:20,  T"]T^"r^^  H-Tn  ^iSH  r\2y  ^^^  ]r 
^— in  ""CiS  Sb  ^?S"D3  (vs.  21)  .'.  .  .,  "Because  this  nation  has 
transgressed  my  covenant  ....  I  also  will  not  henceforth  drive 
out  .  .  .  .";  I  Sam.  30:22,  "And  they  said  [^Dbrrsb  ^ITS  "jr 
Dn^  'r\Z  iJ<b  '''By],  because  they  went  not  with  me,  we  will  not 
give  them  [of  the  spoil]";  I  Kings  11:11,  "And  Jahwe  said  unto 
Solomon  [y"^pX  ^1]:  ....  T]^:?  ni<T  nn^n  im^  ]T],  because  this 
is  with  thee  ....  I  will  rend  the  kingdom  from  thee";  I  Kings 
11:33,  "Behold  I  am  about  to  rend  the  kingdom  from  Solomon 
[vs.  31-vs.  32  is  parenthetical]  [^3^IiT3?  "l^N  "i^"^],  because  they  have 
forsaken  me";  I  Kings  14:7,  n^H  xb"!  ....  ?j^nb^-in  ^ICX  ]r 
ii'Z'l  7:-  "pb  [vs.  10]  ...  .  Ill' -nnyb  ,  "because  I  have  exalted 
thee  ....  and  thou  hast  not  been  like  my  servant  David  .... 


The  Hebrew  Particle  TON  125 

therefore  I  am  about  to  bring  [evil]";  I  Kings  14:15;  16:2, 
.  .  .  .  n^n?^  ■'jan  ....  ^T^^^T  ^"^^  'T.,  "because  ....  I 
am  about  to  sweep  away";  I  Kings  20:28,  36;  II  Kings  1:16, 
''Thus  says  Jahwe  [HS^-J  T^n  &ib  .  .  .  .  nnbtZJ-mSSt  ]T],  Because 
thou  hast  sent  [messengers  to  inquire  of  Baal-zebub]  ....  thou 
shalt  not  come  down  from  it"  (i.e.,  "the  bed  of  sickness");  II  Kings 

21:11,  'Djn  "Db  ....  nb^n  ninyhn  ....  nujrj  nir^  ni23i<  -r 

ny^  ^^^"rr '  "  because  Manasseh  has  done  these  abominations  .  .  .  . 
therefore,  behold  I  am  about  to  bring  evil";  II  Kings  21:15,  "I 
will  cast  off  the  remnant  of  mine  inheritance  [vs.  14]  ...  .  [I'OS;  '^11 
"■^HTlS  VJjy],  because  they  have  done  evil";  the  main  clause  con- 
taining the  threat  here  has  the  perfect  "rrOpS  ....  D'riDD  ,  which 
is  the  prophetic  perfect  indicating  an  unalterable  resolution;  Jer. 
19:4,  Q^'5r-r;2n  -Db  ....  ^S^nU  ^tCS  ]r,  "because  they  have 
forsaken  me  ....  therefore,  behold,  the  days  [are  coming]";  Jer. 
25:8,  nbir'  ^33n  ^■^:n'n-nx  nriTlt  J<b  nilJSS  ]T,  "because  ye  have 
not  obeyed  my  words,  behold,  I  am  about  to  send  ....";  Jer.  29:23, 

nbn:  ^^y  nirst  -r [vs.  21] ^2i<^i3^x  i-n  Dnj<  -nb  ^ppp, 

"behold,  I  am  about  to  deliver  them  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar ....  because  they  have  wrought  folly  in  Israel";  Jer.  29:25 
(text  may  be  faulty);  Jer.  29:31,  "Thus  says  Jahwe  [SSD  "^TliX  -j?^ 
lp_£  ^3Dri  ....  "Sb  ....  WDh],  because  Shemaiah  has  prophesied 
unto  you  ....  therefore  thus  says  Jahwe,  Behold  I  am  about  to 
punish";  Ezek.  12:12,  nSl"!^  ^b-ni2JX  -^r  "Sr  TDD;  the  text 
here  does  not  yield  a  suitable  sense  (cf.  Kraetzschmar,  who  reads 
according  to  the  LXX  "^b  ns^";  niTN  'Tcb ,  "damit  er  nicht 
mit  Augen  gesehen  werde";  Keil  retains  "itlJX  "i^"' ,  but  gives  it  a 
telle  sense,  which  it  never  has;  cf.  also  Toy,  SBOT);  Ezek.  16:43, 

'nn: T]|n'^  ^^n  'pyj-DJi Tj^^^yp  ^^^^'ns  fi-^dt  ^b  ^^25^^;  ]>•: , 

"  because  thou  hast  not  remembered  the  days  of  thy  youth  ....  I 
also,  behold,  will  bring  [thy  way  upon  thy  head]";  Ezek.  31:10, 
^narii^'l  ....  PHIIji  ^'ipi<  'T  ,  "because  thou  art  exalted  in  stature 
.  .  !  .  I  will  deliver  him";  Ezek.  44:12,  ....  ^^123"  n^S!  ]T 
.  .  .  .  "'nJ^lTD  "(3"b^ ,  "because  they  ministered  unto  them  .  .  .  . 
therefore  I  lifted  up  my  hand  against  them  .  .  .  .";  Ps.  109:16, 
"that  he  may  cut  off  their  memory  [^ST'J^b  "itpij;  'T],  because  he 
remembered  not  [to  show  kindness]." 


126  Caul  (Jaknssle 

171.  TluMT  is  one  instance  in  whicli  the  su!)()r(linut('  clause  docs 
not  rcfiM-  to  any  human  action,  hut  to  ii  divine  resolve:   Ezek.  21:9, 

"^■^r:  Sj:f,  "b  ....  -n^r--^"iwS  ]y^ ,  "because  i  will  cut  off 

[perfect  of  jiroplietic  certitude]  from  thee  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  ....  therefore  my  sword  shall  go  forth";  R.V.:  "seeing 
that  ";  the  \ulg.  has  pro  co  quod,  which  probably  means  here  "con- 
formably to  the  fact  tiiat."  In  German  I  should  render  "dement- 
sprechend.  dass." 

17").  Finally,  another  passage  deserves  special  mention:  I  Kings 
8:18,  ni:""!^-  ....  T^ZOb'n'J  rrn  '\^^  "r  .  it  is  logically  im- 
l)ossil)le  in  this  verse  to  take  "ill^i^  "^^  ,  as  is  generally  done,  in 
a  causal  sense.  The  main  clause  is  not  the  result  or  effect  of  the 
■I'siSl  ")7^-clause,  but  merely  pronounces  a  judgment  on  it.  We 
cannot  render,  "Whereas  it  was  in  thy  heart"  (R.V.).  The  only 
tolerable  sense  is  secured  by  rendering  "As  regarding  the  fact  that 
....  you  have  done  well."  This  was  felt  by  the  Vulg.,  which,  though 
generally  using  eo,  quod,  or  quia,  here  translates  quod  cogitasti  .... 
bene  fecisti.  For  an  analogous  usage  cf.  the  Greek  heKa,  which, 
though  ordinarily  employed  in  the  sense  of  "because  of,"  "on  account 
of,"  has,  besides,  the  meaning  "as  regards,"  "with  respect  to."  It 
is  to  be  noted  also  that  in  the  verse  in  question  the  main  clause 
has  the  perfect,  the  tense  of  completed  action,  while  ordinarily  the 
principal  sentence  has  the  imperfect  or  its  equivalent. 

176.  As  to  the  external  form  of  these  periods,  it  is  to  be  remarked 
that  the  subordinate  clause  introduced  by  1■^p^^  "j^^  ordinarily  pre- 
cedes the  main  clause.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  out  of  thirty  examples 
there  are  only  seven  in  which  the  secondary  clause  follows  the 
primary.  It  is  just  the  reverse  in  case  of  "''^^^  J^  .  Out  of  twenty- 
five  examples,  there  are  only  three  in  which  the  subordinate  clause 
precedes.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  l^t^  b^  is,  as  a  rule,  em- 
ployed in  calmer  discourse  and  states  the  cause  objectively,  while 
lips  "|7^  is  used  almost  exclusively  in  the  more  emotional  language 
of  threats  and  promises,  and  hence,  for  sake  of  greater  emphasis  and 
effect,  seeks  its  position  at  the  beginning  of  the  period.  The  dis- 
tinction is,  however,  as  remarked  above,  not  absolute,  as  a  com- 
parison between  the  two  sets  of  clauses  will  show. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "itUS  127 

177.  As  to  the  form  of  the  main  clause,  ^'^^  '?^  preceding,  I 
have  noted  the  following  phenomena:  The  main  clause  is  intro- 
duced: (a)  by  "ipb  and  the  imperfect;  cf.  II  Kings  1:16,  .  .  .  .  "Db 
'nr)  ikb  ;  Jer.  35^9,  n-^r  i<b  -Sb  ;  Ezek.  21:9,  t^^n  "^b  ;  (6)  by 
ilZTl  'db  with  the  participle;  cf.  I  Kings  14:10,  ^''^'2  "'jwri  "Sb  ; 
II  Kings  21:12,  S^n7J  ^jDH  -jb  ;  Jer.  19:6,  D\Sn  U^r  Hin  "Sb  ; 
Jer.  29:31;  (c)  by  tTIDn  alone  and  the  participle;  cf.  I  Kings  16:3, 
^^^y^2  ^ZZr^;  I  Kings  20:36,  T^bin  irjSn  ;  Jer.  25:8,  nb'J  ^j3n  ; 
(d)  by  Hj"  and  the  perfect  (prophetic  certainty);  cf.  1  Kings 
3:11,  "n^U;^  n?-;  (e)  by  D5  and  the  imperfect;  cf.  Judg.  2:20, 
-fCiS  Jib  7^5  C5  ;  compare  with  this  (/)  iSH  ^jS  D:"!  with  the 
perfect,  Ezek.' 16:43,  ^Pn:  ....  5<n  ^3^5  D:"!  ;  the  use  of  Dj  in- 
dicates the  idea  of  correspondence  between  the  sin  and  the  threat: 
"Corresponding  with  what  you  have  done,  so  I  on  my  part,"  etc.; 
(g)  by  "3-b^"  with  perfect;  cf.  Ezek.  44:12,  T^^;  "5"^?;  W  by 
1  and  the  perfect;  cf.  I  Kings  20:28,  "TS  .  .  .'!  ■rin;i ;  {i)  by 
i  and  the  imperfect;   cf.  Ezek.  31 :  10,  ^nprNt'l . 

178.  Sometimes  there  is  no  introductory  particle  of  any  kind; 
cf.  I  Sam.  30:22;  I  Kings  11:11;  II  Chron.  1:11;  II  Kings  10:30; 
I  Kings  8:18;  II  Chron.  6:8.  In  a  single  instance  "3  b>  is  em- 
ployed at  the  beginning  of  the  main  clause,  the  subordinate  following; 
cf.  Josh.  14:14,  above. 

179.  For  the  sake  of  comparison  it  may  be  added  here  that  in  the 
three  cases  in  which  "^IIJSl  b^  precedes  the  primary  sentence  the 
latter  is  introduced  by  ^  in  Deut.  29:27,  nrn  ....  n^S  b^  ; 
by  1  and  the  perfect,  Jer.  16:13,  "ribpni  ;  by  '^D'bT  ,  I  Kings  9:9. 

180.  Instead  of  "^'^^  '?^ ,  "^^  alone  is  frequently  used;  cf. 
Num.  20:12,  "And  Jahwe  said  unto  Moses  and  Aaron  ['i^b  "^^ 
"31  'Drij'pi^n],  because  you  did  not  believe  in  me";  I  Sam.  15:23, 
riirr'  "li^TrS  ripys'J  "?],  "because  thou  hast  rejected  the  word 
of  Jahwe";  I  Kings  14:13;  Isa.  61:1;  65:12. 

181.  This  combination  is  of  rare  occurrence.  The  original  idea 
is  that  of  consequence.  "In  consequence  of  the  fact  that"  is  the 
primary  meaning.     The  action  of  the  main  clause  is  represented 


128  Carl  Ciaenssle 

as  foUowinji,  so  to  speak,  on  the  heels  of  the  subordinate  action. 
By  this  it  is  not  meant  that  the  underlying  figure  was  consciously 
perceived  in  the  usus  loquendi.  In  the  few  passages  in  which  it  occurs 
^'>rx  np5  could  easily  be  replaced  by  "112S:  'T  or  "^'fflS  b? ,  inter- 
changing in  fact  with  the  latter  in  one  case.  Examples:  Gen.  22: 18, 
"In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed  ["^^^  np3^ 
"5pS  DJ"--].  because  [in  consequence  of,  as  a  return  or  reward  for] 
thou  hast  hearkened  unto  my  voice"  (LXX:  av6^  Siv  [usually  also 
employed  in  rendering  "^IpS:  "J"^];  Vulg.:  quia))  Gen.  26:5  (almost 
identical  with  previous  example);  II  Sam.  12:6,  "The  lamb  he 
shall  restore  fourfold  ....  [1^^5  b3?1  ....  niry  n^N!  npl!^], 
because  he  has  done  this  thing  and  because  he  showed  no  mercy." 
The  change  in  the  conjunction  has  already  been  referred  to.  It  may 
be  remarked  that  the  subordinate  clause  always  follows  the  primary 
sentence. 

182.  As  in  the  case  of  other  compounds,  "I1I3!^  may  also  here  be 
dispensed  with;  cf.  Num.  14:24,  i^^  niHiS;  n^n  nn*;-  npJ , 
"because  another  spirit  was  with  him";  Deut.  7:12,  "j^y^lTri  3p>" , 
"because  ye  have  hearkened";    Deut.  8:20. 

n^s  nnn 

183.  This  conjunction  really  means  "instead  of  the  fact  that," 
anstatt  dass.  From  this  root  meaning  it  has  developed  into  a  causal 
conjunction,  corresponding  in  its  usage  quite  closely  with  "''Ci^  "j?"  . 
In  two  passages,  however,  it  accords  best  with  the  sense  to  retain 
the  original  meaning;  cf.  Deut.  28:62,  "Ye  shall  be  left  few  in 
number  [""'11^133  Dr'"''!D  ^^^  '^'j^])  instead  of  your  having  been 
[instead  of  the  fact  that  you  were]  like  the  stars  [of  heaven]"  (R.V. : 
"whereas").  The  Vulg.  felt  the  inappropriateness  of  a  causal  con- 
struction, and  hence  renders  Remanehitis  pauci  numero,  qui  prius 
eratis  sicut  astra  caeli;  correctly  Kautzsch:  "Statt  dass  ihr  vorher 
....  gleichkamt";  Luther,  following  Jerome:  "die  ihr  vorher 
.  .  .  .  gewesen  seid."  Cf.  also  Ezek.  36:34,  "And  the  land  that  was 
desolate  shall  be  tilled  [H'^/J^  nn^H  n^S  nnFl],  instead  of  it 
having  been  desolate";  Kautzsch:  "Anstatt  dass  es  bisher  wiiste 
lag";  Vulg.,  again  omitting  nnn  :  terra  deserta  fuerit  exculta,  quae 
quondam  erat  desolata. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  IlIJJ^  129 

184.  The  other  passages  that  occur  are  the  following:  Num.  25: 
13,  ''And  it  shall  be  unto  him  the  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priest- 
hood [Vnb^b  5<3p  'l"!23(J^  rnri],  because  he  was  jealous  for  his 
God"  (perhaps  there  is  latent  the  notion  of  in  reward  or  return  for, 
etc.);  Deut.  21:14,  "Thou  shalt  not  deal  with  her  as  with  a  slave 
[nn^P  ni2J&<  nnn],  because  thou  hast  forced  her";  Deut.  22:29, 
"And  she  shall  be  his  wife  [n33?  ^"^25^5  rinSTl],  because  he  has  forced 
her";  Deut.  28:47,  "And  they  shall  be  upon  thee  for  a  sign  and  a 
wonder  [r^??  xb  1123 S  rnri],  because  thou  didst  not  serve  Jahwe 
thy  God";  I  Sam.  26:21,  "I  shall  do  thee  evil  no  more  [t^Hri 
"ISSj  nip^  ^^^],  because  [in  return  for]  my  soul  was  precious  [in 
thy  sight'f";  II  Kings  22:17,  Hn^i:']  ....  "3^375  ■^^^^  nnn , 
"because  they  have  forsaken  me,  therefore  my  wrath  shall  be 
kindled  (cf.  similar  passages  under  I'lZJlJi  'i^"");  Isa.  53:12,  "There- 
fore ["5^1  will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great  ....  [nnri 
"^rr"  "''^^]>  because  he  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death;  note  the 
emphatic  'db  ,  which  is  unusual  if  the  main  clause  precedes,  though 
quite  common  when  the  natural  order  is  reversed  (see  the  examples 
under  1^Ij^!;  "r);  Jer.  29:19,  "I  shall  pursue  them  ....  [vs.  18] 
[^J^'^'iIJ  i<b  1123 X  nnp],  because  they  have  not  obeyed  my  words"; 
Jer.  50:7,  "  All  those  that  found  them  devoured  them  ....  [nnp 
^Sipn  112JS!],  because  they  sinned  against  Jahwe";  II  Chron.  21:12, 
rpbn  ikb  112J5<  nnn,  "  because  thou  didst  not  walk  ....  behold 
Jahwe  is  about  to  smite"  (^jib  ....  riBH);  exactly  parallel  to  many 
passages  with  1123  ^i  "^^  ;  the  usual  order  is  here  reversed  for  sake 
of  emphasis;  II  Chron.  34:25,  tjrini  ....  ^2^2V  llStJ  nnn, 
"because  they  have  forsaken  me,  therefore  shall  my  wrath  be  poured 
out  .  .  .  ." 

185.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  subordinate  clause  generally 
follows  the  main  sentence.  In  only  three  instances  it  precedes, 
viz.,  II  Kings  22:17;  II  Chron.  21:12;  34:25,  and  in  each  case  the 
main  clause  contains  a  threat;    cf.  remarks  on  11j35<  "y"' . 

186.  As  for  the  tense  of  the  principal  sentence,  it  is  usually  the 
simple  imperfect.  Once  the  perfect  with  1,  II  Kings  22:17,  not, 
however,  to  denote  completed  action,  but  fixed  purpose.  Similarly, 
there  is  one  instance  of  ^  with  the  imperfect,  II  Chron.  34:25;  also 


130  Carl  (Jaenssle 

of  n2r;  with  the  participle,  II  Chron.  21:12.  These  three  passages 
(referred  to  above)  present  a  divergence  from  the  ordinary  structure, 
due  to  the  reversed  order.  In  one  case,  however,  the  main  clause 
contains  a  perfect  of  completed  action,  viz.,  Jer,  50:7,  "All  those 
that  found  them  devoured  them  [Q^bpN],  because  they  sinned." 
This  is  the  only  case  where  the  main  clause  looks  back  to  the  past 
instead  of  forward  to  the  future. 

187.  Contrary  to  the  general  ruU^  rnri  alone  is  never  used  as  a 
conjunction. 

188.  ^wS:  "^"i^  signifies  properly  "after  the  fact  that."  But  it 
is  not,  in  every  instance,  a  purely  temporal  conjunction.  In  most 
cases,  in  fact,  it  has  a  distinct  causal  connotation,  and  is  equivalent 
to  "since,"  which,  like  the  Hebrew  conjunction,  expresses  both  time 
and  cause. 

189.  Examples  of  strictly  temporal  use:  Josh.  9:16,  "And  it 
came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  three  days  [DHb  iri'^S'TtlJiS!  "'^".^ 
r^"^!!!],  after  they  had  made  a  covenant  with  them  [^^''^IIJ^I], 
that  they  heard";  Josh.  23:1,  "And  it  came  to  pass  in  course  of 
time  [nin*'  M^w^rTIIIJS  ^"^nj^],  after  Jahwe  had  given  rest  unto 
Israel  ....  [^^'^p'^l],  that  Joshua  called,"  etc.  (LXX:  juerd  to 
KaraTavaai,;  Vulg. :  postquam  pacem  dederat);  Josh.  24:20,  "He 
[Jahwe]  will  turn  and  do  you  evil  ....  p^ip^rr^lIJS  ^']~^],  after 
he  has  done  you  good."  In  this  case,  the  tense  is  equivalent  to  a 
future  perfect;  cf.  Vulg. :  postquam  vohis  praestiterit  bona. 

190.  In  the  following  examples  there  is  a  causal  nuance,  so  distinct 
in  a  few  cases  that  after  will  not  convey  the  sense.^  Josh.  7:8,  "O 
Lord,  what  shall  I  say  [zfi'S  ....  T^SH  niljji  ^-^-J^]  after  Israel  has 
turned  the  neck?"  ("since"  could  very  properly  be  substituted 
for  "after")  (LXX:  iird  ixere^aXeu;  Vulg.:  quid  dicam  videns  [avoid- 
ing literality  in  the  interest  of  clearness]);  Judg.  11:36,  "Do  unto 
me  according  to  what  has  proceeded  from  thy  mouth  ....  ['"^T'iii 
r^y  112j^^l],  since  Jahwe  has  wrought  [vengeance  for  thee]"  (R.V.: 
"forasmuch  as";  LXX:  ev  rip  iroirjaaL  aoi  Kvpiov  eKdUrjaLv; 
Vulg.:    concessa  tibi  ultione  [ablative  absolute  expressing  reason]); 

»  Konig,  III,  387a;  Davidson,  Syntax,  1456.  classify  these  as  simply  temporal 
sentences. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  TCii  131 

Juclg.  19:23,  "Do  not  act  wickedly,  I  pray  [125^5<Jl  J^^l'^IIJN  ^^Hbi 
n-TH],  since  this  man  [has  come  into  my  house]"  (RV.:  "seeing 
that";  LXX,  strangely  enough:  juera  to  daekBelv  ;  Vulg. :  quia 
ingressus  est);  II  Sam.  19:30,  "Let  him  take  all  ...  .  [^'^^^^ 
^i|l"^u2^J:],  since  [my  lord,  the  king]  has  returned  [in  safety  to  his 
house]"  (R.V. :  "forasmuch  as";  LXX:  fxera  to  7rapa7ej^€'cr^at ; 
Vulg. :  postquam  reversus  est) ;  both  versions  are  here  palpably  incon- 
sistent as  compared  with  the  rendering  of  similar  examples;  Deut. 
24:4,  "Hemay  not  take  her  again  [n5^:2C)n  npN!  ^"^ns;]  after  she 
has  been  defiled"  (LXX:  /xera  to  txiavdr\vai  ;  Vulg.:  quia  pollutaest). 

191.  Instead  of  ^TTNt  ^"^-^^ ,  ni255<t  nn>5  occurs  in  Ezek.  40:1, 
".  .  .  .  In  the  fourteenth  year  ....  [~'n'2n  ^^^  ^Iji^^l,  after  the 
city  was  smitten." 

192.  Both  ^■]^^^  and  ^"X  may  dispense  with  ^'l25^l! ;  cf.  Lev. 
25:48,  ^3pD  ^"^ni^ ,  "after  he  has  been  sold";  I  Sam.  5:9,  ^"r.S 
inb5  ^3Cn ',  "  after  they  had  carried  it  about " ;  Jer.  41 :  16,  nSIl  nni< , 
"after  he  had  smitten";  Job  42:7,  HIH^  ^n^  nnj< ,  "after  Jahwe 
had  spoken." 

193.  Unusual  for 7ns:  In  Josh.  2:7  we  find  the  strange  com- 
bination ^^^"2  ^^~5^ .  It  seems  highly  improbable  that  this  is 
original.  The  remark  of  Steuernagel,  "wohl  Verschmelzung  der 
Lesarten  lllJSlj  und  "I'lTi^  "^nx ,"  gives,  perhaps,  the  true  explana- 
tion, unless  "''^"i^  be  taken  as  an  adverb  (cf.  IHi}^ ,  which  occurs  as 
such).  In  this  case,  we  could  render  "afterwards,"  "when."  Cf. 
Gen. 6:4,  ....  D^nbj^n  "3^  ^Sn;  ^m  "(b-^:^n!SJ  QjI,  "and  also 
afterwards  when  [ever]  the  sons  of  God  came."  Skinner  suggests 
the  excision  of  "|J  .  .  .  .  DjI  ,  and  the  union  of  ^TliS  with  the 
preceding  DHn  D'''2^S .  So  also  Gunkel:  "das  ....  den  Zusam- 
menhang  storende  hernachmals  ist  wohl  Zusatz  eines  angstlichen 
Lesers,"  etc.  Delitzsch  retains:  "und  auch  nachher,  da  sich 
gesellten  (atque  etiam  postea  quam)."  But  whatever  be  done  with 
the  text,  there  is  no  close  connection  between  ^'^2j^^  and  the  pre- 
ceding "|b'"'"]'j^  •  "'''^'r?'  is  here  used  independently  in  the  sense  of 
"when." 

194.  1123^^  1^  with  the  imperfect:  ItdN!  1^  with  the  imperfect 
denotes  a  point  of  time  in  the  future  at  which  the  action  of  the  main 


132  Caul  (Iaensslk 

clause  teriniiiutcs.  Since  the  latter  itself  usually  appears  in  the 
future,  the  imperfect  of  the  subordinate  is,  in  effect,  a  future  perfect. 
This  use  of  the  imi:)crfect  is  denied  by  some  grammarians  (Boettcher, 
II,  O-iOc;  "Fiens  kein  fut.  exact"),  while  others  admit  it  (cf.  Gesenius- 
Kautzsch,  107/;  Konig,  III,  387a).  The  LXX  rendering  of  these 
clauses  is  cither  ews  with  the  aorist  infinitive  or  more  frequently  ecos 
til',  eojs  ov  with  the  subjunctive  aorist,  which,  as  is  well  known,  is  often 
equivalent  to  the  Latin  future  perfect.  The  English  idiom  disregard- 
ing, as  it  often  does,  the  exact  specification  of  the  time  relation  between 
two  actions  of  the  future,  the  future  perfect  force  of  the  Hebrew 
imperfect  is  not  always  apparent  in  translation.  In  the  sentence 
"Wait  until  I  return,"  the  present  "I  return"  =  "I  shall  have 
returned."  Similarly  in  German:  "Warte  bis  ich  zuruckkehre.'^ 
Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  Hebrew  imperfect  in  the 
clauses  to  follow  was  distinctly  felt  as  a  future  perfect.  Logically, 
however,  it  is  such. 

195.  Examples:  Gen.  27:44,  "Thou  shalt  remain  with  him  ["^ 
....  2VJJr\"^"JJS],  until  [thy  brother's  wrath]  turn  away"  (LXX: 
'ioiSTOviinarpiypaC);  Gen.  29:8,  "We  cannot  \^jTj  ^^b]  [^SC^^;;  "^llij^  l?], 
until  all  the  flocks  be  gathered";  Gen.  33: 14,  "I  will  lead  on  gently 
[«n^!t  nipy;  n?],  until  I  come  to  Seir";  Exod.  23:30,  "Little  by 
httle  will  I  drive  them  out  [rT^Sri  IlIJJ^  1?]  until  thou  be  increased" 
(LXX:  €cos  av  ah^rid^s);  Exod.  24 :  14,  " Remain  here  p^TIJ:  llCi^  i:? 
D!3"'bS|]  until  we  return  to  you"  (LXX:  ecos  av  avaarpiypoiixtv);  Lev. 
22:4,  "He  shall  not  eat  of  the  holy  things  pnt:^  "^^^^  13?],  until  he 
be  clean"  (LXX:  ecos  av  Kadapiadri);  Num.  11:20,  "For  a  month  of 
days  [shall  ye  eat  it]  [D^ESp  S;i^-n'^i<  !>'],  until  it  come  out  of 
your  nostrils"  (LXX:  ecos  a?'  e^eXdv);  Num.  20:17,  "We  shall  not 
turn  to  the  right  or  to  the  left  [^H^D  "Ilp5<  1^],  until  we  have  passed 
[thy  border]"  (cf.  21:22);  Deut.  3:20,  "Your  wives  ....  shall 
remain  [H'^r  "^'^2j^i!  1^],  until  Jahwe  give  rest  [unto  your  brethren] " ; 
Josh.  1:15,  "Ye  shall  pass  over  armed  [H'^r  ■'t!j^^  1^]  until  Jahwe 
have  given  [R.V.]  [your  brethren  rest]";  I  Sam.  22:3,  "Let  my 
father  and  mother  go  out  with  you  [J'lN  "1123 Nl  1^],  until  I  know 
[what  God  will  do  for  me]";  Mic.  7:9,  "I  will  bear  the  indignation 
of  Jahwe  [3^*];  ^'JJX  1^],  until  he  pleads  [my  cause]";  Ruth  1:13, 
"Would  you  tarry  [^b'Hj'^  ItlJS  ly],  until  they  were  grown  ?" ;  Ruth 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "1^55  133 

3:18,  "Sit  still,  my  daughter  [-fynn  -^m  1^],  until  thou  know"; 
Eccles.  12:1,  "Remember  thy  creator  in  the  days  of  thy  youth 
[^Xn;  U^b  n'^wS!  1^],  until  the  evil  days  are  not  [yet]  come"  (  = 
"before  the  evil  days  come")  (so  also  12:2,  6);  Neh.  2:7,  "That 
they  [the  prefects]  permit  me  to  pass  through  [i<izi<  ~\ij5i<  iy],  until 
I  come  to  Judah";  Neh.  4:5,  "They  shall  not  know  and  not  see 
[XnX  ^ISJS;  ly],  until  we  come  [in  the  midst  of  them]";  I  Chron.  19:5, 
"  Remain  in  Jericho  ["TJIi";  ntDS  !>']  until  [your  beards]  be  grown." 

196.  In  one  instance  the  perfect  is  found  after  '^lp^i  1^ ,  though 
the  time-relation  between  the  main  and  subordinate  clauses  is  the 
same  as  in  the  above  examples:  II  Sam.  17:13,  "We  will  draw  it 
into  the  river  [i<^"-3  !}<b'ntI35i  ly]  until  there  be  not  [even  a  stone] 
found  [there]."  The  perfect  gives  the  thought  greater  emphasis. 
Similarly,  the  perfect  is  found  in  other  compounds  than  ^T2J}<  ly . 
So  after  DJ^  1^ ;  cf.  Gen.  24:19,  "I  shall  draw  for  thy  camels  also 
[^b3"DS  ly],  until  they  have  done  drinking"  (LXX:  ecos  au  7rico<n 
[as  in  similar  examples  with  the  Hebrew  imperfect]).  So  also  after 
Q5<  nirS;  1?:  Gen.  28:15,  "I  shall  not  forsake  thee  ['D^  '\^^  ly 
'r\^''Xy],  until  I  have  done  that  which  I  said"  (LXX:  ecos  tov  TroLrjaai 
jxe;  Vulg.:  nisi  complevero) ;  Num.  32:17,  "We  ourselves  will  be 
ready  armed  to  go  before  them  [Q:S'':irTD!J5  T^23^|!  iy],  until  we 
have  brought  them  to  their  place";  Isa.  6:11,  "And  I  asked,  How 
long?  and  he  said  [^tiir"DS  TiJS  13''],  until  the  cities  be  waste 
without  an  inhabitant." 

197.  Occasionally  the  ITliS  !>' -clause  with  the  imperfect  has  a 
final  nuance:  Jonah  4:5,  "He  sat  under  it  in  the  shade  [^TJpX  ^^ 
nJ^^'^j,  till  he  might  see  [R.V.]  [what  would  become  of  the  city]"; 
it  will  be  noticed  that  the  governing  clause  here  is  in  the  past  (Vulg. : 
donee  videret;  Kautzsch :  "  um  abzuwarten,  was  mit  der  Stadt  gesche- 
henwerde");  Eccles.2:3,  "Howtolayholdonfolly[n5<ni<  ^t)^  ly], 
till  I  might  see  [R.V.]  [what  was  good  for  the  sons  of  men  to  do]." 

"1123^11   IS  with  the  Perfect 

198.  nUpS  ly  with  the  perfect  generally  denotes  a  point  of  time 
in  the  past  at  which  the  action  of  the  main  clause  terminates.  Since 
the  latter  is,  in  these  cases,  itself  in  the  past,  the  perfect  of  the  sub- 
ordinate clause  is,  in  effect,  a  pluperfect. 


\:U  Caul  (Iaensslk 

109.  Examples:  Dcut.  2:14,  "The  daj's  in  which  we  came  from 
Kadesh-Barnea  [^j'^I^^''  "^"^I^  '^?],  until  we  [had]  crossed  the  brook 
Zared";  Josh.  3:17,  "And  the  priests  ....  stood  in  the  midst 
of  the  Jordan  [V2r\  1123SI  1?]  until  all  the  nation  had  completely 
passed  over";  Josh.  8:26,  "For  Joshua  drew  not  back  his  hand 
.  .  .  .  [D'^nn  "'irS  ly],  until  he  had  destroyed  [devoted]  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Ai";  I  Kings  10:7,  "I  did  not  believe  the  words 
['nSS"'"uJS;  ">],  until  I  had  come."  Kautzsch  renders  here:  "bis 
ich  gekommcn  bin,"  as  referring  to  an  action  completed  in  the 
present;  Vulg.:  donee  ipsa  veni.  But  since  the  conversation  took 
place  after  the  Queen  of  Sheba  had  witnessed  all  of  Solomon's  glory, 
the  pluperfect  may  very  well  be  employed.^  Cf.  II  Chron.  9:6. 
Naturally,  the  LXX  in  these  clauses  employs  the  indicative,  since  the 
reference  is  to  a  definite  past  occurrence,  e.g.,  Deut.  2:14,  ecos  ov 
TvaprfKdojiev  ;  Josh.  3:17,  ecos  crwereXecre. 

200.  Sometimes  ■''OSl  1?  marks  the  climax  or  culmination  of  a 
certain  condition  or  of  a  certain  line  of  action  rather  than  the  tem- 
poral limit  of  the  action  of  the  main  clause.  In  other  words,  it 
signifies  "to  the  point  or  degree  that"  instead  of  "to  the  time  that." 
Examples:  I  Kings  17:17,  "His  malady  was  very  grievous  [■'1I5S;  1^ 
12  ""^rii:  Sb],  until  no  [breath]  was  left  in  him"  (R.V.:  "His  sick- 
ness was  so  sore  that  there  was  no  breath  left  in  him"  [employing  a 
simple  consecutive  clause] ;  Vulg. :  ita  ut  non  remaneret;  Kautzsch : 
"so  sehr,  dass");  II  Kings  17:20,  "And  Jahwe  rejected  all  the  seed 
of  Israel  and  delivered  them  ....  [OrbllJri  nipS  ly],  until  he 
[definitely]  cast  them  off"  (indicating  the  culmination  of  the  divine 
chastisements);  II  Kings  17:23,  "And  the  Israelites  walked  in  all  the 
sins  of  Jeroboam  ....  they  departed  not  from  them  [vs.  22]  [1^ 
mri"'  ■'"Cn  "iIIJNi],  until  Jahwe  removed  [Israel  from  his  sight]  "(the 
final  outcome  of  Israel's  transgressions);  II  Kings  21:16,  "Manas- 
seh  shed  innocent  blood  very  much  [^'2  "illJiJi  15],  until  he  filled 
[Jerusalem  from  one  end  to  another]";  Ezek.  34:21,  "Because  ye 
thrust  with  side  and  with  shoulder  [Dni^^Sn  ^TIJS  "?],  until  ye 
have  scattered  [them  abroad]"  (describing  the  final  results  of  their 
cruel  treatment  as  a  present  condition);  Ps.  112:8,  "He  shall  not  be 

'  What  has  been  said  with  reference  to  the  lax  use  of  English  tenses  to  designate 
relative  time  in  the  future  appUes  also  to  relative  time  in  the  past. 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "illJit  135 

afraid  [V'l^^  nj^"^";  ^m  ly],  until  he  shall  see  [his  desire]  on  his 
adversaries"  (in  which  his  security  will  triumphantly  culminate). 

201.  "I123S;  ly  occurs  also  in  nominal  sentences;  cf.  Exod.  32:20, 
''and  he  ground  it  [the  calf]  [pV'Tl2J>Ji  ny],  until  it  was  dust"; 
I  Sam.  30:4,  ''They  wept  [UtlD,  yi^  nm  15],  until  there  was  no 
power  in  them  to  weep." 

202.  A  very  strange  combination  is  ^D■'^^"TC^!l  IV  in  Josh. 
17:14,  "And  I  am  a  great  people"  (circumstantial  clause),  "I^ 
"PP'^S  JlD'iy  '^'t^^^ .  If  the  text  be  retained  the  translation 
must  run  "to  the  degree  that  Jahwe  has  thus  far  [or  simply  'thus'] 
blessed  me."  The  sense  is  that  the  greatness  is  due  to  a  pecuhar 
blessing  of  Jahwe.  But  probably  we  are  to  read  TOi^  bl?  :  "I 
am  a  great  people,  because  Jahwe  has  thus  far  blessed  me";  LXX: 
Kal  6  Beds  evXoyrjae  ixe  (avoiding  the  dijQBculty  altogether  if  the 
text  was  the  same) ;  so  also  Vulg. :  et  benedixerit  mihi  Dominus. 

203.  It  need  hardly  be  added  that  instead  of  'ni;;:^  TJ ,  the 
simple  ly  performs  the  same  function.  Cf.  Josh.  10:13,  Up^"lV_ 
VIl''k  "'ij ,  "until  the  people  had  taken  vengeance  against  its 
enemies";  Ezek.  39:15,  ini<  TOjiJ  15,  "until  they  had  buried 
him";  Job  32:11;  II  Chron.  29:34. ' 

204.  ^^^  ]y')2b  signifies  "to  the  intent  that,"  "to  the  end 
that";  of.  the  Arabic  -Lw ,  intention,  aim,  purpose;  cf.  also  Prov. 
16:14,  "Jahwe  has  made  everything  [^PlDy^b]  for  its  own  end," 
in  which  TT^TC ,  the  original  form  of  "^'J ,  appears  in  the  same 
sense  as  in  the  compound  conjunctional  form. 

205.  Examples:  Gen.  18:19,  "I  have  known  him  [^^^  ]T2b 
VDlHTJi  n^^'']  to  the  end  that  he  may  command  his  children"; 
Lev.  17:5,  "This  is  the  thing  which  Jahwe  has  commanded  .... 
[vss.  2  ff.]  [^i^^^l  "lISS;  ]T'2b],  to  the  end  that  the  Israelites  bring 
[their  sacrifices]";  Num.  17:4,  "As  a  memorial  to  the  Israelites 
[n'^p";"5<b  "lllj^i^  '\T^%  to  the  end  that  no  [stranger]  ....  should 
draw  near";  Deut.  20:18,  "You  shall  destroy  them  [vs.  17]  ['T2b 
DDDi^  ^153^  ^b  I^S],  that  they  teach  you  not";  Deut.  27:3, 
"Thou  shalt  write  upon  them  all  the  words  of  this  law  [^'05^  "j^^^b 


136  (\\HL    (lAKN.SSLK 

SZPJ,  that  thou  mayest  enter  into  the  land";  Josh.  3:4,  "Come  not 
near  to  it  [the  ark]  [^:''^^l■1'lI3^|l  "[Tib],  that  ye  may  know  [the  way]"; 
II  Sam.  13:5,  "Let  her  ....  prepare  food  before  my  eyes  ['^'^b 
nX")S  ^'^2:^^;],  that  I  may  see  it";  Jer.  42:6,  "We  will  obey  the  voice 
of  Jahwe  our  God  [^rb'Zp""  "^rr*]-  that  it  may  be  well  with  us"; 
Ezek.  20:26,  "Anil  I  polluted  them  in  their  own  gifts  ....  []T2h 
^3?T  ■^'^3^J!],  to  the  end  that  they  might  know  that  I  am  Jahwe"; 
Ezek.  31 :  14,  "Upon  his  ruin  all  the  birds  of  the  heavens  shall  dwell 
....  [vs.  13]  [^nify-U^b  n'^23^^  ^rib],  to  the  end  that  [the  trees]  do 
not  exalt  themselves." 

206.  The  tense  in  these  final  sentences  is,  of  course,  always  the 
imperfect. 

207.  Simple  "^rf  occurs  with  greater  frequency  than  "^^^  "?"rb  ; 
cf.  Konig,  III,  3966,  whose  list,  though  purporting  to  be  complete, 
omits  three  of  the  "'"^Ij^^  "^'^b -passages,  viz.,  Num.  17:5;  Deut. 
20:18;   Ezek.  31:14. 

Sporadic  Cases  of  Compounds  with  "Itlj^^ 

208.  There  is  quite  a  number  of  instances  in  which  "•'fflSl  occurs 
sporadically  (as  a  rule  but  once)  in  conjunction  with  various  prepo- 
sitional forms.  I  shall  gather  these  isolated  cases  into  this  final  para- 
graph. '^'OSi  ■'Zyil  occurs  in  Gen.  27:10,  "And  thou  shalt  bring  it 
to  thy  father  [^j^^^  ^^^,  ^^??],  that  he  may  bless  thee."  This 
is  a  telle  conjunclJion  not  essentially  different  in  meaning  from  "^'^b 
ItCyt .  The  etymological  sense  is,  however,  "for  the  gain  of," 
"fiir  den  Ertrag  von"  (Konig,  III,  396c).  "'??^  alone  occurs 
quite  frequently  both  as  a  preposition  ("for  the  sake  of")  and  as  a 
conjunction.  ■'^^?■^  occurs  in  Isa.  43:4,  T??  I;OP^  ""^^"r  > 
"because  [lit.,  "from  the  fact  that"]  thou  art  precious  in  my  eyes"; 
cf .  the  not  infrequent  causal  use  of  "2 .  Sometimes  Num.  6:11  is 
also  regarded  as  exhibiting  this  use  of  ^''IJN;'^  :  "And  he  [the  priest] 
shall  make  atonement  for  him  [12JS3ri"b>  i^I^n  ^12JS:'«],  for  that  he 
has  sinned  "  (R.V.) ;  Vulg. :  pro  eo,  quia  peccavit.  But  it  seems  prefer- 
able to  take  "2  as  a  preposition  and  combine  "i^Nl  with  J^tp" ,  thus 
arriving  at  the  following  translation:  "And  he  shall  make  atone- 
ment for  him  from  what  he  has  sinned."  The  sinner  in  question  is 
to  be  cleansed  from  his  ceremonial  uncleanness;    cf.   Lev.  4:26, 


The  Hebrew  Particle  ^125i<  137 

"and  the  priest  shall  atone  for  him  [i^^i^^;p]  from  his  sin."  There 
are  two  instances  of  TllJJJ!  ^jB'2  :  Exod.  19:18,  ''And  mount  Sinai 
smoked  ....  [ly^  ^^'^'^jB'C],  because  of  the  fact  that  [Jahwe] 
had  descended  [upon  it  in  fire]";  lit.  "from  before  the  fact  that," 
an  originally  local  conception  developing  into  a  causal  one;  cf. 
Assyr.:  sa  istu  pa-an  sunki  bu-bu-te  a-na  ....  e-li-u-ni, 
"who  because  of  want  and  hunger  to  ...  .  had  gone  up"  (Ashurnaz., 
II,  7).  The  second  instance  is  Jer.  44:23,  DrT!t:p  nilJNI  ^Zil'2 
.  .  .  .  "3"by  .  .  .  .  ,  "because  you  have  burned  incense  .  .  .  . 
therefore  [this  great  evil  has  happened  unto  you]."  The  compound 
^.^^  inb  occurs  in  Esther  4:11.  I  should  not  have  referred  to  it 
at  ail  but  for  the  fact  that  Konig  (III,  392e)  translates  ausser  wenn, 
which  is  hardly  correct.  The  passage  runs:  "And  Esther  gave  him 
a  message  unto  Mordecai:  All  the  king's  servants  and  the  people 
of  the  king's  provinces  do  know  that  whosoever,  whether  man  or 
woman,  shall  come  ....  who  is  not  called,  there  is  one  law  for 
him  .  .  .  .,"  D^n^'^-DNt  T^b^H  lb  XTW  ^123^5p  nnb.  This 
plainly  means  "except,"  or  "apart  from  him,  to  whom  the  king  shall 
hold  out  his  [golden]  sceptre."  The  ib  retrospective  decidedly 
favors  this  rendering.  1123S  is  not  conjunctional,  but  pronominal. 
^TIJS  "bz'a  has  a  restrictive  force:  Eccles.  3:11,  "He  [God]  has 
placed  eternity  [dpr^  in  their  hearts  [W]^T\  ^"I'T  ^h  '\^^  "bTp], 

only  that  a  man  cannot  find  out "    The  U^b  is  really  pleonastic, 

since  the  negation  is  already  contained  in  "^bsp  ;  cf.  BDB. 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES  COMMENTED  UPON 


[The  figures  refer  to  sections] 


Gen.    4:18 7 

Gen.    6:  3 7 

Gen.    6:   4 193 

Gen.  12:11 160 

Gen.  15:   4 65 

Gen.  22:16 173 

Gen.  22:18 181 

Gen.  24:14 119 

Gen.  24:22 160 

Gen.  24:27 109 

Gen.  27:   4 149 

Gen.  27:10 208 

Gen.  27:30 160 

Gen.  27:40 161 

Gen.  30:18 109 

Gen.  30:29 100,143 

Gen.  30:38 141 

Gen.  30:41 145 

Gen.  31:32 SS 

Gen.  31:49 '...  107 

Gen.  37:23 ' 160 

Gen.  38:21 21 

Gen.  40:  3 72 

Gen.  40:13 141 

Gen.  41:21 149 

Gen.  41:28 69 

Gen.  42:29 109 

Gen.  43:14 156 

Gen.  44:    1 152 

Gen.  44:   5 84,86 

Gen.  44:  9 64 

Gen.  44:10 48,120 

Gen.  45:   4 49 

Gen.  46:20 90 

Gen.  49:    1 48,66 

Exod.    1:12 159 

Exod.    1:15 77 

Exod.    5:11 20,22,24,26 

Exod.    6:   5 79 

Exod.    6:   8 76 


Exod.    6:21 7 

Exod.  10:   6 87,142 

Exod.  10:10 158 

Exod.  12:16 65 

E.xod.  14:13 142 

Exod.  17:11 161 

Exod.  18:   9 137 

Exod.  18:10 109 

Exod.  19:   8 208 

Exod.  21:13 117 

Exod.  32:   1 113 

Exod.  32:19 160 

Exod.  32:20 201 

Exod.  32:23 113 

Exod.  32:33 132 

Exod.  32:34 20 

Exod.  34:18 142 


78 

91 

126 

126 

Lev.  24:20 157 

Lev.  27:   8 170 

Lev.  27:24 70 


Lev.  6:  3. 
Lev.  11:21. 
Lev. 18:29. 
Lev.  22:   3. 


Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 
Num. 


1:19. 

5:29. 

6:11. 

8:24. 

9:20. 

9:21. 
10:32. 
17:20. 
20:13. 
22:  6. 
22:  8. 
25:13. 
27:14. 
27:17. 


154 

117 

208 

61 

117 

117 

74 

48 

35 

62 

152 

184 

162 

113 


139 


140  Carl  Gaenssle 

Num.  32:;51 67      I  Sam.  24:19 89,  137 

Num.  ;«:    1 141       I  Sam.  25: 15 73 

1  Sam.  26:16 lOS 

Deut.     1 :31 35      I  Sam.  28:   9 137 

Deut.    3:24 107,116      I  Sam.  28:18 162 

Dout.    4:40 HI 

Deut.    8:15 35      II  Sam.     1:4 144 

Devit.ll:   4 137      II  Sam.    2:   4 58,144 

Deut.  11:  6 137      II  Sam.    2:   5 108 

Deut.  18:22 117      II  Sam.    6:20 109 

Deut.  20:   5 132      II  Sam.    7:   9 28 

Dout.  22:26 158      II  Sam.  12:   6 164 

Deut.  25:18 137      II  Sam.  14:26 103 

Deut.  27:26 48,62      II  Sam.  17:13 196 

Deut.  28:20 137      II  Sam.  18:   4 69 

Deut.  28:49 48      II  Sam.  24: 10 83 

Deut.  28:62.  , 183 

Deut.  32:46 Ill       I  Kings    3:   6 162 

Deut.  33: 11 145      I  Kings    3:   9 53 

I  Kings    3:13 114 

Jo.sh.    1:7 28      I  Kings    3: 19 109 

Jo.>^h.    2:   3 91      I  Kings    8:  9 141 

Josh.    2:   7 193      I  Kings    8:18 175 

Josh.    4:7 104      I  Kings    8:23-24 109 

Josh.    5:   4 74      I  Kings    8:31 117 

Josh.    7:8 190      I  Kings    8:39 109 

Josh.    8:26 80      I  Kings    9:   7 53 

Josh.  17:14 202      I  Kings  10:   7 199 

Josh.  22:31 107      I  Kings  11:27 74 

Josh.  24:20 189      I  Kings  12:   2 36 

I  Kings  14:19 143 

Judg.    8:15 74      I  Kings  17:17 200 

Judg.    9:17 137      I  Kings  19:    1 104 

Judg.    9:38 80      I  Kings  21: 19 72 

Judg.  10:18 132 

Judg.  11 :24 67,  68      II  Kings    7:   7 149 

Judg.  11:36 190      II  Kings  12:   3 107 

Judg.  17:   8 20,26,27       II  Kings  12:   6 89 

Judg.  17:   9 20,26      II  Kings  14: 15 143 

Judg.  19:23 190       II  Kings  17:20 200 

II  Kings  17:23 200 

I  Sam.    3:11 76       II  Kings  18: 19 52 

I  Sam.  10:   7 69       II  Kings  19:   6 74 

I  Sam.  11:   7 122       II  Kings  20:20 103 

I  Sam.  15:   2 .137       II  Kings  23: 17 52 

I  Sam.  15:15 107,108 

I  Sam.  15:20 144       Isa.  10:10 155 

I  Sam.  20:42 107       Isa.  11:16 149 


The  Hebrew  Particle  "IW&^  141 

Isa.  14:24 150      Ezek.  36:24 183 

Isa.  18:   2 145      Ezek.  39:29 109 

Isa.  23:   5 160      Ezek.  47:13.  .- 35 

Isa.  24:12 149 

Isa.  29:22 91       Hos.  14:4 107 

Isa.  41:   8 49 

Isa.  43:   4 208      Amos  5:1 89 

Isa.  47:12 88 

Isa.  51 :  13 158      Ob.  16 145 

Isa.  51:17 49 

Isa.  53:   9 166      Jonah  4:5 197 

Isa.  53:12 184      Jonah  4: 10 140 

Isa.  54:   9 142 

Isa.  55:   1 63,134      Mic.  3:3 158 

Isa.  56:   4 88      Mic.  3:5 64 

Isa.  64:10 35 

Isa.  65:    1 71       ^ech.    2:   4 172 

Zech.    8:23 103 

Jer.    1:16 137      Zech.ll:13 74 


Jer.    3:   8 168 

Jer.    5:22 109 

Jer.  11:15 15 

Jer.  14:    1 89 

Jer.  15:   4 164 

Jer.  16:13 109 

Jer.  19:11 114 


Zech.  12:10. 

Zech.  13:   6 144 

Zech.  14:17 63 

Mai.  2:9 171 

Ps.  16:3 98 

Ps.  31:8 137 


•!^^-23:29 146      p,_^^,^s-U 133 


Jer.  28:   9 48 

Jer.  29:19 141 

Jer.  31:10 145 

Jer.  32:35 140 


Ps.  41:9 141 

Ps.  42:2 146 

Ps.  69:5 141 

Ps.  84:4 35 


J«'--33:22 142      p^_  g^^g 35 


Jer.  42:14 HI 

Jer.  48:   8 142 

Jer.  49:19 116 

Jer.  50:   7 186 


Ps.  95:11 114 

Ps.  102:28 58 

Ps.  112:   8 200 

Ps.  139:15 140 


Ezek.    1:16 .• 158  Prov.  16:14 204 

Ezek.    6:  9 109 

Ezek.    6:11 109  Job    4:   8 151 

Ezek.  12:12 173  Job    7:   2 146 

Ezek.  12:25 89  Job    9:16-17 109 

Ezek.  14:   4 124  Job  10:   7 166 

Ezek.  16:50 160  Job  11: 16 146 

Ezek.  20:32 136 

Ezek.  21:   9 174  Ruth  1:16 20,34 

Ezek.  34:21 200  Ruth  1:17 20,26 

Ezek.  36:27 115  Ruth  2:   2 48 


142 


Carl  Gaenssle 


Koh.  3:11. 
Koh.  3:22. 
Koh.  5:14. 
Koh.  6:12. 
Koh.  8:11. 
Koh.  8:12. 
Koh.  8:15. 
Koh.  9:  2. 
Koh.  9:  4. 

Esther  4:11 
Esther  4: 16. 
Esther  9: 22. 


208  Dan.  2:3S 25 

103 

149  Ezra  2: 1-2 91 

107  Ezra  6:    1 25 

107  Ezra  6: 12 55 

139 

136  Neh.  2:   3 107 

149  Neh.  3:35 139 

132  Neh.  5:2-4 116 

208  IlChron.    2:   2 154 

140  IlChron.  10:   2 36 

82  IlChron.  35:20 136 


UNlVERSli^    v.. 


t.  desk  from  which  borrowed. 


iMR 


\y 


fi"^^^ 


.100m-9;48(B3998l6)476 


GayJord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  jy  y 


^oCll^p 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


